Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

Bäuml, Karl Heinz; Aslan, Alp

doi:10.3758/bf03195852

Cited by 92 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, also with regard to part-list cuing, children showed intact retrieval inhibition in their episodic recall. In agreement with the results from very recent work (Bäuml & Aslan, 2004;Bäuml & Kuhbandner, 2003), the detrimental effect of part-list cuing did not differ from that of retrieval practice, either in pattern or in size.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Then the list's four (children) or five (adults) weakest associations to the common cue item (nontarget items) were read in random order at a rate of one item every 2 sec, and the subjects were asked to recall the remaining items (target items). Detrimental effects of part-list cuing have been demonstrated both when cues were presented at test and when cues were presented before test (Bäuml & Aslan, 2004;Roediger et al, 1977). Although the detrimental effect of cuing is slightly reduced in the beforevariant (Roediger et al, 1977), this variant facilitates the direct comparison of the detrimental effects of retrieval practice and partlist cuing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bjork, 1989), this failure has been interpreted as evidence for impaired inhibition in children's episodic recall (but see MacLeod et al, 2003, andSahakyan &Kelley, 2002, for alternative, noninhibitory accounts). Using the retrieval practice paradigm and the part-list cuing paradigm, both of which have been attributed to inhibition as well (M. C. Anderson et al, 1994;Bäuml & Aslan, 2004), in the present article, we have examined whether the results from the directedforgetting paradigm generalize to other inhibition paradigms. No evidence for an inhibitory deficit has been found, however.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has recently been argued that not only retrievalinduced forgetting, but also part-list cuing is caused by retrieval inhibition (M. C. Anderson et al, 1994;Bäuml & Aslan, 2004;Bäuml & Kuhbandner, 2003). Whereas in retrieval-induced forgetting the overt retrieval of practiced items is supposed to cause the inhibition of unpracticed items (M. C. Anderson et al, 1994;M.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 In this experiment, we chose the modified variant of the retrieval practice paradigm to allow as direct a comparison as possible of the detrimental effects of retrieval practice and part-list cuing (see Bäuml & Aslan, 2004, for a discussion of this point). Such a direct comparison in both children's and adults' episodic recall can cast further light on the question of to what extent retrieval-induced forgetting and part-list cuing are mediated by the same mechanism.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Intact retrieval inhibition in children’s episodic recall

Zellner

Bäuml

2005

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young children are assumed to be inefficient inhibitors in a number of cognitive tasks. In two experiments, we examined whether such deficits extend to children's episodic recall. We used two inhibition paradigms: retrieval-induced forgetting, the detrimental effect of retrieval practice with a subset of learned items on recall of the unpracticed items, and part-list cuing, the detrimental effect of the presentation of a subset of learned items on recall of the remaining items. In both experiments, the inhibitory effects were compared across three age groups: first or second graders, fourth graders, and young adults. The two children groups showed the same amounts of retrieval-induced forgetting and part-list cuing as the adult group, pointing to intact retrieval inhibition in young children's episodic recall. These results parallel very recent results on older adults' episodic recall, suggesting that both retrieval-induced forgetting and part-list cuing develop early in life and remain intact for the greater part of the lifespan.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Intact retrieval inhibition in children’s episodic recall

Zellner

Bäuml

2005

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Inhibition in Memory

Raaijmakers

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past 20 years, a new approach to forgetting has been proposed, based on the notion of inhibition. According to this view forgetting is partly due to a process of inhibitory control. In this chapter, I review the current status of this account, discussing the evidence that has been proposed as well as the counterarguments that have been made. I show that the paradigms that are likely to generate the best evidence for inhibition are the retrieval induced forgetting paradigm and the think / no-think paradigm. Other paradigms such as directed forgetting and part-list cuing seem to be better explained using other memory principles. I conclude that there is a need for a consistent and preferably formalized model that combines inhibition and competition as principal factors in forgetting.

show abstract

Collaborative encoding with a new categorization task: a contribution to collaborative memory research

Conte,

Pelegrina,

Padulo

et al. 2024

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative memory research has focused primarily on the effects of collaboration at recall with collaboration during encoding receiving less attention. In the present study, collaboration was investigated both at encoding and at retrieval to determine its effects and possible interactions. The aim was to clarify whether the collaborative inhibition effect depended on whether the encoding was with the same or with a different partner. A total of 320 participants (160 Italian and 160 Spanish undergraduate students) were administered a modified version of the collaborative memory paradigm with a new categorization task of verbal affective stimuli at encoding. Specifically, they were asked to classify 90 printed words into 6 categories, so as to have 15 words in each category and then did two recall tasks. Participants were assigned to one of five possible conditions according to encoding (collaborative, individual) and recall (collaborative with the same partner, with another partner, and individual). Results show a collaborative encoding deficit and the classic collaborative inhibition effect independently of whether the encoding was collaborative or individual and even in a collaborative recall group that showed a degree of recall output organization comparable to that of the individual recall group. These results are not wholly consistent with a retrieval disruption explanation and are discussed according to divided attention during collaborative recall and how it may contribute to the collaborative inhibition effect.

show abstract

Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

Cited by 92 publications

References 43 publications

Intact retrieval inhibition in children’s episodic recall

Intact retrieval inhibition in children’s episodic recall

Inhibition in Memory

Collaborative encoding with a new categorization task: a contribution to collaborative memory research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About