The modulation of part-list cuing on item memory has been well-documented, whereas its impact on associative memory remains largely unknown. The present study explored the effect of part-list cuing on associative recognition and, more specifically, whether this forgetting effect caused by part-list cuing is more sensitive to recollection or familiarity in recognition memory. Experiments 1a and 1b combined the intact/rearranged/new judgement task of associative recognition with the classical part-list cuing paradigm, and the result showed that part-list cuing impaired the recognition accuracy of “intact” and “rearranged” face–scene pairs. Moreover, the discriminability score of relational recognition and item recognition was significantly decreased in the part-list cuing condition compared to the no-part-list cuing condition. Experiments 2a and 2b further used the Remember/Know/Guess task to explore which recognition processes (recollection vs. familiarity) were sensitive to the presentation of part-list cuing. The results showed that part-list cuing reduced the familiarity of relational recognition and the recollection and familiarity of item recognition. These findings suggest that part-list cuing was harmful to the recognition of relationships (familiarity) and items (recollection and familiarity) in associative memory.
AchimA.LepageM. (2003). Neural correlates of associative and item memory [Master’s, thesis]. McGill University.
2.
AndersonM. C.BjorkR. A.BjorkE. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1063–1087. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063
3.
AslanA.BäumlK.-H. (2007). Part-list cuing with and without item-specific probes: The role of encoding. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(3), 489–494. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194095
4.
AslanA.BäumlK.-H.GrundgeigerT. (2007). The role of inhibitory processes in part-list cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.335
5.
AslanA.JohnT. (2019). Part-list cuing effects in younger and older adults’ episodic recall. Psychology and Aging, 34(2), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000268
6.
BaadteC.Meinhardt-InjacB. (2019). The picture superiority effect in associative memory: A developmental study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12280
7.
BaiX. J.LiuT. L.ShenD. L. (2014). The inhibitory process of part-list cuing effect: Evidence from emotional stroop task. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00143
8.
BasdenD. R.BasdenB. H. (1995). Some tests of the strategy disruption interpretation of part-list cuing inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1656–1669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.6.1656
9.
BäumlK.-H.AslanA. (2004). Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition. Memory and Cognition, 32(4), 610–617. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195852
10.
BäumlK.-H.AslanA. (2006). Part-list cuing can be transient and lasting: The role of encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.1.33
11.
BeckerN.KalpouzosG.PerssonJ.LaukkaE. J.BrehmerY. (2017). Differential Effects of Encoding Instructions on Brain Activity Patterns of Item and Associative Memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(3), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01062
12.
ChenT.Naveh-BenjaminM. (2012). Assessing the associative deficit of older adults in long-term and short-term/working memory. Psychology and Aging, 27(3), 666–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026943
13.
CohnM.McandrewsM. P.MoscovitchM. (2009). Associative reinstatement: A novel approach to assessing associative memory in patients with unilateral temporal lobe excisions. Neuropsychologia, 47(13), 2989–2994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.029
14.
CohnM.MoscovitchM. (2007). Dissociating measures of associative memory: Evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.006
15.
CorbettB.DuarteA. (2020). How proactive interference during new associative learning impacts general and specific memory in young and old. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(9), 1607–1623. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01582
De BrigardF.LangellaS.StanleyM. L.CastelA. D.GiovanelloK. S. (2020). Age-related differences in recognition in associative memory. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B: Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 27(2), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2019.1607820
18.
DelhayeE.TibonR.GronauN.LevyD. A.BastinC. (2018). Misrecollection prevents older adults from benefitting from semantic relatedness of the memoranda in associative memory. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B: Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 25(5), 634–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2017.1358351
19.
DesaunayP.ClochonP.DoidyF.LambrechtsA.BowlerD. M.GerardinP.. . . Guillery-GirardB. (2017). Impact of Semantic Relatedness on Associative Memory: An ERP Study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, Article 335. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00335
20.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
21.
FoosP. W.ClarkM. C. (2000). Old age, inhibition, and the part-set cuing effect. Educational Gerontology, 26(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/036012700267303
22.
FritzC. O.MorrisP. E. (2015). Part-set cuing of texts, scenes, and matrices. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12058
GreeneN. R.Naveh-BenjaminM. (2020). A specificity principle of memory: Evidence from aging and associative memory. Psychological Science, 31(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620901760
25.
GreeneN. R.Naveh-BenjaminM. (2021). The effects of divided attention at encoding on specific and gist-based associative episodic memory. Memory & Cognition, 50, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01196-9
26.
HanM.MaoX.KartvelishviliN.LiW.GuoC. (2018). Unitization mitigates interference by intrinsic negative emotion in familiarity and recollection of associative memory: Electrophysiological evidence. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(6), 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-018-0636-y
27.
HanczakowskiM.PasekT.ZawadzkaK. (2012). Context-dependent impairment of recollection in list-method directed forgetting. Memory, 20(7), 758–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.702774
JohnT.AslanA. (2018). Part-list cuing effects in children: A developmental dissociation between the detrimental and beneficial effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 705–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.013
30.
JohnT.AslanA. (2020). Age differences in the persistence of part-list cuing impairment: The role of retrieval inhibition and strategy disruption. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 191, 104746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104746
31.
KimballD. R.BjorkR. A. (2002). Influences of intentional and unintentional forgetting on false memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.1.116
32.
KnottL. M.HoweM. L.WimmerM. C.DewhurstS. A. (2011). The development of automatic and controlled inhibitory retrieval processes in true and false recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.01.001
33.
KonkleT.BradyT. F.AlvarezG. A.OlivaA. (2010). Scene memory is more detailed than you think: The role of categories in visual long-term memory. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1551–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385359
34.
KuhlmannB. G.BrubakerM. S.PfeifferT.Naveh-BenjaminM. (2021). Longer resistance of associative versus item memory to interference-based forgetting, even in older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(3), 422–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000963
35.
LehmerE. M.BäumlK.-T. (2018a). The many faces of part-list cuing-evidence for the interplay between detrimental and beneficial mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 701. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00701
36.
LehmerE. M.BäumlK.-T. (2018b). Part-list cuing can impair, improve, or not influence recall performance: The critical roles of encoding and access to study context at test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(8), 1186–1200. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000517
37.
LiB.MaoX.WangY.GuoC. (2017). Electrophysiological correlates of familiarity and recollection in associative recognition: Contributions of perceptual and conceptual processing to unitization. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, Article 125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00125
38.
LiuT.XingM.BaiX. (2020). Part-List cues hinder familiarity but not recollection in item recognition: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 561899. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.561899
39.
LiuT.ZhaoY.BaiX.HeA.XingM. (2022). Revisiting the multi-mechanism hypothesis of part-list cuing: The role of list-length and item presentation time. Memory, 30(9), 1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2022.2080225
40.
LiuT. L.BaiX. J. (2017). The effect of part-list cues on memory retrieval: The role of inhibition ability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(9), 1158–1171. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01158
41.
LiuZ.GuoC. (2021). Unitization could facilitate item recognition but inhibit verbatim recognition for picture stimuli: Behavioral and event-related potential study. Psychological Research, 85(8), 2935–2953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01442-w
42.
LiuZ.WangY.GuoC. (2020). Under the condition of unitization at encoding rather than unitization at retrieval, familiarity could support associative recognition and the relationship between unitization and recollection was moderated by unitization-congruence. Learning and Memory, 27(3), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.051094.119
43.
LuB.LiuZ.WangY.GuoC. (2020). The different effects of concept definition and interactive imagery encoding on associative recognition for word and picture stimuli. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 158, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.09.012
44.
MadanC. R.CaplanJ. B.LauC. S. M.FujiwaraE. (2012). Emotional arousal does not enhance association-memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 695–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.001
45.
MaoW. B.AnS.YangX. F. (2017). The effects of goal relevance and perceptual features on emotional items and associative memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01223
Naveh-BenjaminM. (2000). Adult age differences in memory performance: Tests of an associative deficit hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1170–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1170
49.
NickersonR. S. (1984). Retrieval Inhibition from part-set cuing: A persisting enigma in memory research. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213342
50.
OldS. R.Naveh-BenjaminM. (2008). Differential effects of age on item and associative measures of memory: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.23.1.104
51.
OswaldK. M.SerraM.KrishnaA. (2006). Part-list cuing in speeded recognition and free recall. Memory and Cognition, 34(3), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193575
52.
ParksC. M.YonelinasA. P. (2015). The importance of unitization for familiarity-based learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 881–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000068
53.
PepeN. W.MoyerA.PenaT.RajaramS. (2023). Deceitful hints: A meta-analytic review of the part-List cuing impairment in recall. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 30(4), 1243–1272. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02263-9
54.
PeynircioğluZ. F. (1989). Part-set cuing effect with word-fragment cuing: Evidence against the strategy disruption and increased-list-length explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.1.147
55.
ReysenM. B.NairneJ. S. (2002). Part-set cuing of false memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 389–393. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196298
56.
RoedigerH. L. (1973). Inhibition in recall from cueing with recall targets. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6), 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80044-1
57.
SahakyanL.KelleyC. M. (2002). A contextual change account of the directed forgetting effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.6.1064
58.
SauvageM. M.BeerZ.EichenbaumH. (2010). Recognition memory: Adding a response deadline eliminates recollection but spares familiarity. Learning and Memory, 17(2), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.1647710
59.
SlameckaN. J. (1968). An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4), 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025695
60.
SunT. (2018). Sex difference in face recognition: The effect of female processing superiority based on behavioral and electrophysiological evidence [Unpublished doctor’s dissertation]. East China Normal University.
61.
TangW. H.LiuT. L.ShiY.FengH.LiuX. P. (2014). The development of allocation of study time on part-list cuing effect of pictures. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(5), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00621
62.
TibonR.GronauN.ScheupleinA.-L.MecklingerA.LevyD. A. (2014). Associative recognition processes are modulated by the semantic unitizability of memoranda. Brain and Cognition, 92, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2014.09.009
63.
TodresA. K.WatkinsM. J. (1981). A part-set cuing effect in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.7.2.91
64.
TomparyA.DuncanK.DavachiL. (2015). Consolidation of associative and item memory is related to post-encoding functional connectivity between the ventral tegmental area and different medial temporal lobe subregions during an unrelated task. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(19), 7326–7331. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4816-14.2015
65.
Van KesterenM. T. R.RignaneseP.GianferraraP. G.KrabbendamL.MeeterM. (2020). Congruency and reactivation aid memory integration through reinstatement of prior knowledge. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4776. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61737-1
66.
Ventura-BortC.WendtJ.WirknerJ.KönigJ.LotzeM.HammA. O.. . .WeymarM. (2020). Neural substrates of long-term item and source memory for emotional associates: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 1047, 107561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107561
67.
VerdeM. F. (2004). Associative interference in recognition memory: A dual-process account. Memory and Cognition, 32(8), 1273–1283. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206318
68.
WangY.MaoX.LiB.WangW.GuoC. (2016). Dissociating the electrophysiological correlates between item retrieval and associative retrieval in associative recognition: From the perspective of directed forgetting. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1754. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01754
69.
WhitlockJ.ChiuJ. Y.SahakyanL. (2022). Directed forgetting in associative memory: Dissociating item and associative impairment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001027
70.
WhitlockJ.LoY. P.ChiuY. C.SahakyanL. (2020). Eye movement analyses of strong and weak memories and goal-driven forgetting. Cognition, 204, 104391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104391
71.
XingM.NiuZ.LiuT. (2021). The part-list cuing effect in working memory: The influence of task presentation mode. Acta Psychologica, 219, 103393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103393
72.
YangJ.ZhanL.WangY.DuX.ZhouW.NingX.. . .MoscovitchM. (2016). Effects of learning experience on forgetting rates of item and associative memories. Learning and Memory, 23(7), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.041210.115
73.
YonelinasA. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864
74.
YonelinasA. P.JacobyL. L. (1995). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 622–643. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1028
75.
YonelinasA. P.JacobyL. L. (2012). The process-dissociation approach two decades later: Convergence, boundary conditions, and new directions. Memory and Cognition, 40(5), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0205-5
76.
ZellnerM.BäumlK.-H. (2005). Intact retrieval inhibition in children’s episodic recall. Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193058
77.
ZhangY.LiangT.YeC.LiuQ. (2020). The inhibitory effect of long-term associative representation on working memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(5), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.J.1041.2020.00562
78.
ZhaoM.-F.ZimmerH. D.ZhouX.FuX. (2016). Enactment supports unitisation of action components and enhances the contribution of familiarity to associative recognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(8), 932–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2016.1229321
79.
ZhengZ.LiJ.XiaoF.BrosterL. S.JiangY.XiM. (2015). The effects of unitization on the contribution of familiarity and recollection processes to associative recognition memory: Evidence from event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(3), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.01.003
