Stop-signal reaction time scores (SSRTs) were estimated for each participant using the ANALYZE-IT software provided by Verbruggen

et al. (2008). The mean learn more stop-signal delay was calculated and then subtracted from the mean untrimmed response time for all go trials. The overall mean SSRT was 273 ms (SD = 37 ms), and SSRTs in the category-cued (M = 271 ms, SD = 38 ms) and category-plus-stem (M = 275 ms, SD = 35 ms) conditions did not differ, t < 1. Further analysis of the distribution of SSRT scores failed to observe significant skew (category-plus-stem: .23, SE = .31; category-cued: .01, SE = .30) or kurtosis (category-plus-stem: −.04, SE = .61; category-cued: −.20, SE = .59) in either condition. To examine our hypothesis about the role of inhibitory control

in retrieval-induced forgetting, we first examined the relationship between SSRT and retrieval-induced forgetting in the category-plus-stem-cued recall group, in which the effects of competition at test are better controlled. As shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 2, a significant negative correlation between SSRT and RIF-Z was observed, r = −.31, p = .02. That is, the faster the stop-signal reaction time, the greater the level of retrieval-induced forgetting for participants in the category-plus-stem condition, consistent www.selleckchem.com/products/at13387.html with the expectation that retrieval-induced forgetting on this test is positively related to inhibitory control ability. According to the correlated costs and benefits argument, however, the relationship between retrieval-induced forgetting and SSRT should be weaker on tests in which blocking has a greater potential of affecting performance on the final test. Consistent with this prediction, and as shown in the top panel of Fig. 2, a very different relationship emerged for participants in the category-cued condition, with participants in that condition showing a significant Sirolimus solubility dmso positive correlation between SSRT and RIF-Z, r = .27,

p = .03. To further establish the importance of test conditions on the relationship between SSRT and retrieval-induced forgetting, a hierarchical regression analysis was carried out to examine the proportion of variance in RIF-Z scores explained by SSRT, Type of Test, and the SSRT × Type of Test interaction. As expected, the first step, which included SSRT and Type of Test as predictors, did not produce a significant model, F(2, 122) < 1, R2 = .00. Including the SSRT × Type of Test interaction term in the second step, however, did produce a significant model, F(3,121) = 3.18, p = .02, R2 = .08, and the interaction term accounted for significant additional variance, F(1, 121) = 10.75, p = .001, ΔR2 = .08, thus confirming that the relationship between SSRT and retrieval-induced forgetting did vary significantly as a function of test condition.