@article{JohnAslan2020, author = {John, Thomas and Aslan, Alp}, title = {Age differences in the persistence of part-list cuing impairment: The role of retrieval inhibition and strategy disruption}, series = {Journal of Experimental Child Psychology}, volume = {191}, journal = {Journal of Experimental Child Psychology}, pages = {104746}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Providing a subset of previously studied information as a retrieval cue can impair memory for the remaining information. Previous work with adults has shown that such part-list cuing impairment (PLCI) can be transient or lasting, depending on study condition. Here, we investigated the persistence of PLCI in children. Three age groups (7- and 8-year-olds, 9- and 10-year-olds, and 12- to 14-year-olds) learned a list of items, either through a single study trial (1-study condition) or through two study-test cycles (2-study-test condition). Subsequently, two recall tests were administered, with part-list cues being provided in the first (critical) test but not in the second (final) test. Of primary interest was whether the detrimental effect of part-list cuing induced in the critical test would persist to the uncued final test. In 12- to 14-year-olds, we found an adult-like pattern of results, with lasting impairment in the 1-study condition but transient impairment in the 2-study-test condition. In contrast, in the two younger age groups, we found PLCI to be lasting in both study conditions, suggesting age differences in the persistence of PLCI. The results are discussed in light of a recently proposed two-mechanism account of PLCI that attributes lasting impairment to retrieval inhibition and transient impairment to strategy disruption. Following this account, the results suggest that whereas 12- to 14-year-olds' PLCI was caused by (lasting) retrieval inhibition in the 1-study condition and by (transient) strategy disruption in the 2-study-test condition, 7- and 8-year-olds' and 9- and 10-year-olds' PLCI was caused by (lasting) retrieval inhibition in both study conditions.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BaeumlAslanAbel2017, author = {B{\"a}uml, Karl-Heinz T. and Aslan, Alp and Abel, Magdalena}, title = {Chapter Five - The Two Faces of Selective Memory Retrieval—Cognitive, Developmental, and Social Processes}, series = {Psychology of Learning and Motivation}, booktitle = {Psychology of Learning and Motivation}, editor = {Ross, Brian H.}, publisher = {Academic Press}, address = {London, Oxford, Boston, New York, San Diego}, publisher = {Technische Hochschule Rosenheim}, pages = {167 -- 209}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Numerous studies from the past five decades have shown that selective retrieval of some studied items can impair recall of other items. This chapter reviews more recent work, in which it is demonstrated that selective memory retrieval has two faces and that it can both impair and improve recall of other items. In this recent work, participants' access to study context during selective retrieval was experimentally manipulated and it was examined whether such manipulation influences the effects of selective retrieval. Access to study context was manipulated using listwise directed forgetting, context-dependent forgetting and time-dependent forgetting. The results consistently showed that selective retrieval impairs recall of other memories if access to study context during retrieval is largely maintained, but that selective retrieval can improve recall if study context access is impaired. The findings are explained by a two-factor account, which claims that, in general, selective retrieval does not only trigger inhibition and blocking but also triggers context reactivation processes. The proposal is that primarily inhibition and blocking operate when study context access during selective retrieval is largely maintained, whereas primarily context reactivation processes operate when study context access is impaired. Current findings on the two faces of selective retrieval are well consistent with this theoretical view.}, language = {en} }