Episodic Memory
Part-List Cueing Task
Also called: part-list cuing, part-set cueing, part-set cuing, part-list cueing inhibition, part-list cuing impairment
Study six groups of words, then type each group's words; for half of the groups, two of the words are shown. Measures how seeing part of a list changes recall of the rest.
6-8 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 27
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how seeing some words of a studied group changes recall of the rest. Participants study six groups of words, then type each group's words; for half of the groups, two of the words are shown.
Constructs
- Part-list cueing
- Retrieval inhibition
- Cued recall
- Episodic memory
Research uses
- Memory and learning research
- Studies of retrieval cues and forgetting
- Aging and memory research
How the paradigm works
The Part-List Cueing Task measures how seeing some words of a studied list at recall changes recall of the rest. Slamecka (1968) gave people part of a list they had just studied as cues for the rest and found that the cues did not help: people given cues recalled fewer of the other words than people given none. Roediger (1973) found the same within categories: with every category name given, adding some of a category's own words lowered recall of its other words, and more of them lowered it further. Nickerson (1984) called the effect a persisting enigma in memory research, because the cues are words of the list, yet they make the rest harder to reach.
More about the paradigm
In this version, the participant studies six categories of five words, such as herbs and spices or musical instruments, one category at a time: the category's name for 3 seconds, then its words one at a time for 2 seconds each with a half-second blank after each, the timing Bäuml and Aslan (2004) used. After 30 seconds of true-or-false arithmetic, the participant types each category's words under its name, with up to 30 seconds and a Done button for each. For three of the categories, two of their five words are shown as cues and the participant types the other three; for the other three, the participant types all five. The session's seed orders the categories, picks the cued ones from two orders that give both kinds the same average place in the recall, and picks the cues. A practice category of four desserts, with one word shown, comes first. The words were written for this task in each of the eight app languages.
The main score is the part-list cueing cost: the share of the uncued categories' words recalled minus the share of the cued categories' words not shown that are recalled. The cues are drawn at random, so an uncued category's words stand for the words not shown; above 0, the cues cost recall. Each condition's recall, cue words typed back, words typed under another category and entries that name no word are also reported. In Bäuml and Aslan's experiment, which gave each word's first letter at test, 77% of a category's target words were recalled with no cues and 71% after four of its other words were shown as cues. A meta-analysis of 109 samples (Pepe et al., 2023) found a medium-sized impairment (Hedges' g = -0.45 for designs that compare conditions within each person) that changed little with list length, the number of cues or recall time. One person's cost over 9 cued and 15 uncued words is noisy, so it is best used to compare groups. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Part-List Cueing Cost%
- Share of the uncued categories' words recalled minus share of the cued categories' words not shown that were recalled.
- Positive means the cues cost recall
- Recall, Cued Categories%
- Share of the cued categories' words not shown that were typed under their category.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Uncued Categories%
- Share of the uncued categories' words typed under their category.
- Higher is better
- Words Recalledcount
- Words typed under their own category, the words shown as cues aside.
- Higher is better
- Cue Words Typedcount
- Words shown as cues that were typed back.
- Context for the scores
- Words in Another Categorycount
- List words typed under another category; they are not counted as recalled.
- Context for the scores
- Intrusionscount
- Typed entries that name no word of the list.
- Lower is better
- Repeatscount
- Words typed again under the same category.
- Context for the scores
- Entries Typedcount
- Entries typed in all the recalls.
- Context for the scores
- Blank Recallscount
- Categories whose recall ended with nothing typed.
- Context for the scores
- Categories Recalledcount
- Category recalls completed.
- Context for the scores
- Categories Plannedcount
- Category recalls the test planned.
- Context for the scores
- Paste Attemptscount
- Blocked attempts to paste text into the recall box.
- Should be 0
- Delay Arithmetic Accuracy%
- Share of the true-or-false arithmetic answered correctly in the delay.
- Shows the delay task was done
- Delay Arithmetic Answerscount
- Arithmetic problems answered in the delay.
- Shows the delay task was done
- Delayseconds
- Seconds of arithmetic between the list and the recall.
- Context for the scores
- Recall Timeseconds
- Seconds given to type each category's words.
- Context for the scores
Use and evidence
27 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 374 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 4 |
| 2024 | 9 |
| 2023 | 9 |
| 2022 | 1 |
| 2021 | 4 |
| 2020 | 7 |
| 2019 | 5 |
| 2018 | 7 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2014 | 8 |
| 2013 | 9 |
| 2012 | 10 |
| 2011 | 8 |
| 2010 | 9 |
| 2009 | 8 |
| 2008 | 6 |
| 2007 | 11 |
| 2006 | 10 |
| 2005 | 5 |
| 2004 | 4 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 8 |
| 2001 | 4 |
| 2000 | 8 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 2
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Study
- 6 categories of 5 words, one category at a time, in an order drawn for each session: the category's name for 3,000 ms, then each word for 2,000 ms, each followed by a 500 ms blank, switched on animation frames.
- Delay
- 30 seconds (standard; 0 to 120) of true-or-false arithmetic.
- Recall
- One category at a time under its name, typed for up to 30 seconds each (standard; 15 to 90) on a visible timer, with a Done button. For 3 categories, 2 of their 5 words are shown as cues and the other 3 are typed; for the other 3 categories, all 5 are typed.
- Order
- The session's seed orders the categories at study and at recall, makes either the 1st, 4th and 5th categories recalled or the 2nd, 3rd and 6th the cued ones, and picks the cues, so across sessions every word is a cue, a word to recall beside cues and a word recalled with no cues.
- Words
- Herbs and spices, trees, creatures of legend, sports, games and musical instruments, written for this task in eight languages, the same things in each, every word at least 3 edits from every other in languages written in letters.
- Spelling
- Case, accents and punctuation are ignored, and plurals and other spellings count. In languages written in letters, one wrong, missing, extra or swapped letter is accepted in words of 4 or more letters unless the answer is another word of the language. In Japanese, kanji, hiragana and katakana count; in Chinese, simplified and traditional characters. A word counts under its own category only.
- Scores
- The part-list cueing cost: the share of the uncued categories' words recalled minus the share of the cued categories' words not shown that are recalled (Slamecka 1968; Roediger 1973). Recall in each condition, cue words typed back and words typed under another category are also reported.
- Practice
- A category of 4 desserts, then its untimed recall with 1 word shown, then the number of the other 3 typed.
Slamecka (1968) found that giving people part of a studied list as cues lowers recall of the rest, and Roediger (1973) found the same within categories. The words were written for this task in eight languages; no published category norm or word list is used. One person's score is noisy, so compare groups. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the part_list_cueing_recall rows of the scored run (practice excluded), typed recall of each category, with the delay arithmetic of the same run. Typed recall has no chance level and no response is required, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Recalling no list word is flagged, as is a run that recalled fewer categories than planned. Typing more words from outside the list than list words, with at least 6 of them, is flagged. Blocked paste attempts are flagged. No arithmetic answered in the delay, or delay arithmetic at or below chance over at least 10 answers, is flagged. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
Recall has no options to guess between, and recalling nothing can be a real result, so it is flagged for review rather than invalidated. The cost compares cued with uncued categories, so a run that stopped before every category was recalled is reviewed. Many words from outside the list suggest the instructions were not followed, and pasting could bring in words from elsewhere. The arithmetic fills the delay so the last words are not rehearsed. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Arithmetic before the recall (seconds) | 30 | 0 to 120 |
| Recall time per group (seconds) | 30 | 15 to 90 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Part-List Cueing Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Slamecka, 1968), with the standard settings (arithmetic before the recall (seconds): 30; recall time per group (seconds): 30). The main score was part-list cueing cost (share of the uncued categories' words recalled minus share of the cued categories' words not shown that were recalled).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Slamecka, N. J. (1968). An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4, Pt. 1), 504-513. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025695The finding: part of a studied list given as cues lowers recall of the rest.
- Roediger, H. 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)80044-1Categories studied under their names, then recalled with some of their own words as cues.
- Bäuml, K.-H., & Aslan, A. (2004). Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 610-617. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195852The study timing: the category's name for 3 seconds, then each word for 2 seconds and a half-second blank.
- Pepe, N. W., Moyer, A., Peña, T., & Rajaram, S. (2023). Deceitful hints: A meta-analytic review of the part-list cuing impairment in recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(4), 1243-1272. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02263-9A medium-sized impairment across 109 samples.
Source papers
- Slamecka NJ (1968). An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4, Pt.1):504-513.Paradigm source
- Roediger HL (1973). Inhibition in recall from cueing with recall targets. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6):644-657.Paradigm source
- Pepe NW, Moyer A, Peña T, Rajaram S (2023). Deceitful hints: A meta-analytic review of the part-list cuing impairment in recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(4):1243-1272.Paradigm source
Questions
How long does the Part-List Cueing Task take?
About 6 to 8 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Part-List Cueing Cost, Recall, Cued Categories, Recall, Uncued Categories, Words Recalled, Cue Words Typed, Words in Another Category, Intrusions, Repeats, Entries Typed, Blank Recalls, Categories Recalled, Categories Planned, Paste Attempts, Delay Arithmetic Accuracy, Delay Arithmetic Answers, Delay and Recall Time. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Part-List Cueing Task used in research?
27 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 374 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Part-List Cueing Task have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Arithmetic before the recall (seconds) (0 to 120) and recall time per group (seconds) (15 to 90). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.