Once again, STOP-IT was employed to measure response inhibition (Verbruggen et al., 2008). The parameters, instructions, and exclusion criteria were the same as those employed in Experiment 1. Six subjects were removed because they performed in a way that did not allow valid estimates of SSRT to be obtained. Specifically, these subjects withheld their response on significantly more or less than the 50% criterion. One additional subject was selleck inhibitor removed for having considerable difficulty with the task and exhibiting an SSRT score 15.8 SDs above the mean. Altogether, data from 96 of the 106 subjects were included. Retrieval-practice performance data was lost for 18 of the 96 subjects. The remaining
78 subjects successfully retrieved 82% (SD = 13%) of the exemplars during retrieval practice, a rate very similar to that observed in Experiment 1. Hit rates for Rp+, Rp−, and learn more Nrp items and false alarm rates for lures associated with Rp and Nrp categories are shown in the top row of Table 2. To analyze recognition accuracy, d’ was computed for all three item types by calculating Zhit rate–Zfalse-alarm rate. As expected, a significant effect of retrieval practice was observed such that Rp+ items (M = 2.57, SE = .07)
were better recognized than Nrp items (M = 1.89, SE = .07), t(95) = 8.28, p < .001, d = .85. As shown in the bottom row of Table 2, d′ values were numerically lower for Rp− items (M = 1.80, SE = .08) than they were for Nrp items (M = 1.89, SE = .07). Although a paired-samples t test indicated that this difference was not statistically significant, t(95) = 1.24, p = .22, a repeated-measures ANCOVA with SSRT scores serving as a covariate—thus controlling for additional error variance—found that it was, F(1, 94) = 6.69, MSE = .24, p = .01. This finding replicates the many studies that have observed RIF using item recognition (e.g., Aslan and Bäuml, 2010, Aslan and Bäuml, 2011, Hicks and Starns, 2004, Ortega et al., 2012, Román et al., 2009, Soriano
et al., 2009 and Spitzer and Bäuml, 2007). The fact that including SSRT as a covariate had such a large effect suggests that it accounted for a large proportion of the variance in retrieval-induced forgetting, a possibility we explore more directly below. Before analyzing Org 27569 the correlation between retrieval-induced forgetting and SSRT, we computed the amount of retrieval-induced forgetting observed for each participant. As in Experiment 1, we did this by z-normalizing each participant’s retrieval-induced forgetting score relative to the mean and standard deviation of all other participants in their matched counterbalancing condition. An analysis of the resulting RIF-z scores failed to reveal evidence of significant skew (.13, SE = .25) or kurtosis (−.39, SE = .49), and these statistics did not vary significantly from those observed in Experiment 1.