Episodic Memory
Retrieval-Induced Forgetting Task
Also called: RIF task, retrieval-practice paradigm, retrieval-induced forgetting paradigm, category-exemplar retrieval practice
Measure retrieval-induced forgetting: recalling some words of a category makes the other words of that category harder to recall later.
10-12 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 102
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures retrieval-induced forgetting. Participants study category-word pairs, practice recalling half the words of half the categories, then recall every word from its category and first letter. The main score is the forgetting of unpracticed words in practiced categories against words of unpracticed categories. The words are in English.
Constructs
- Episodic memory
- Retrieval inhibition
- Memory interference
Research uses
- Memory and forgetting research
- Inhibitory control research
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
Retrieval-induced forgetting is the finding that recalling some memories makes related memories harder to recall later. In the retrieval-practice paradigm of Anderson, Bjork and Bjork (1994), participants study pairs of a category and a member, such as BIRD - raven, for 5 seconds each (3 to 8 as a setting). By default the session draws 6 of 8 categories (4 or 8 as a setting), each with 6 English members, and two pairs of a filler category come first and two last. The pairs come in blocks that hold one member of each category, with no category twice in a row.
More about the paradigm
In retrieval practice, participants recall 3 members of half the categories three times each, in three rounds, from the category and the member's first two letters (BIRD - ra), typing each answer within 10 seconds (6 to 20 as a setting), without feedback. After 60 seconds of true-or-false arithmetic (0 to 300 as a setting), the final test cues every member with its category and first letter, as in the paper's Experiment 3. The categories come in blocks; within each, the members that were not practiced, or their counterparts in unpracticed categories, are tested first, so recalling practiced members cannot block them. The session's seed decides which categories and members are practiced and every order. A short example with feedback teaches the answer format first.
The main score is retrieval-induced forgetting: recall of the unpracticed categories' members tested first minus recall of the unpracticed members of practiced categories (Rp-). Positive means the practice made related words harder to recall. Recall of the practiced members (Rp+) shows the benefit of practice. A plural counts as the word, and one spelling slip is accepted unless the typed word is another English word. The words are English; sessions run in other languages are flagged for review. Individual effects are noisy, so the measure suits group comparisons best. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Retrieval-Induced Forgetting%
- Recall of unpracticed categories' members tested first minus recall of unpracticed members of practiced categories (Rp-).
- Positive means practice made related words harder to recall
- Practice Benefit%
- Recall of practiced members (Rp+) minus recall of unpracticed categories' members tested second.
- Positive means practice helped the practiced words
- Rp+ Recall%
- Share of practiced members recalled at the final test.
- Higher means better recall
- Rp- Recall%
- Share of unpracticed members of practiced categories recalled.
- Compare with the baseline
- Nrp Recall%
- Share of members of unpracticed categories recalled.
- The baseline over every Nrp member
- Nrp Recall, Tested First%
- Share of unpracticed categories' members recalled among those tested first in their category.
- The baseline for Rp- recall
- Nrp Recall, Tested Second%
- Share of unpracticed categories' members recalled among those tested second in their category.
- The baseline for Rp+ recall
- Forgetting Against All Nrp%
- Recall of every member of unpracticed categories minus Rp- recall.
- Positive means forgetting
- Practice Success%
- Share of retrieval practice trials answered with the practiced member.
- Below 50% is flagged for review
- Wrong Answerscount
- Final test answers that were not the cued member.
- Context for recall scores
- Blank Answerscount
- Final test cues passed with nothing typed.
- Context for recall scores
- Time-outscount
- Final test cues with no answer when the time ran out.
- Context for recall scores
- Median Recall Timems
- Median time from the cue to a correct answer, leaving out answers under 100 ms.
- Context for recall scores
- Words Testeditems
- Scored cues shown in the final test.
- Fewer than 90% of those planned is invalid
- Words Planneditems
- Scored cues the session set out to show.
- 24, 36 or 48
- Answers Under 100 mscount
- Final test answers submitted within 100 ms of the cue.
- Expected to be 0
- Paste Attemptscount
- Blocked attempts to paste or drop text into the answer box.
- Any is flagged for review
- Delayseconds
- Seconds of arithmetic between retrieval practice and the test.
- Setting context
Use and evidence
102 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 26% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 183 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 21 |
| 2024 | 17 |
| 2023 | 19 |
| 2022 | 21 |
| 2021 | 24 |
| 2020 | 25 |
| 2019 | 25 |
| 2018 | 31 |
| 2017 | 33 |
| 2016 | 24 |
| 2015 | 53 |
| 2014 | 47 |
| 2013 | 52 |
| 2012 | 54 |
| 2011 | 57 |
| 2010 | 36 |
| 2009 | 32 |
| 2008 | 33 |
| 2007 | 35 |
| 2006 | 33 |
| 2005 | 15 |
| 2004 | 20 |
| 2003 | 7 |
| 2002 | 8 |
| 2001 | 8 |
| 2000 | 4 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 15
- 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 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Categories
- 8 categories written for this task, 6 English members each, with distinct first letters within a category; a filler category of 4 and an example category of 2. A session uses 6 categories by default, or 4 or 8 as a setting.
- Study
- Each category-member pair for 5 seconds by default (3 to 8 as a setting), in blocks that hold one member of each category with no category twice in a row; 2 filler pairs come first and 2 last.
- Retrieval practice
- 3 members of half the categories, 3 times each in three rounds, cued by the category and the member's first 2 letters, between one filler cue at each end. Each answer is typed within 10 seconds by default (6 to 20 as a setting), without feedback.
- Delay
- 60 seconds of true-or-false arithmetic by default, 0 to 300 as a setting.
- Final test
- Every member, cued by its category and first letter, after 2 filler cues. Categories come in blocks in a pattern that gives practiced and unpracticed categories the same mean place across sessions; within each, the 3 members not practiced, or their counterparts in an unpracticed category, are tested first.
- Answer
- Typed with autocorrect off and submitted with Enter or a button. A plural counts as the word, and one spelling slip is accepted in a word of 4 or more letters unless the typed word is another English word.
- Example
- 2 pairs of their own, studied and then cued, each followed by feedback, before the study list.
The categories and members were written for this task and chosen by rule from open word lists; no published category norms or word lists are used. The words are English; sessions run in other languages are flagged for review.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: retrieval_induced_forgetting_test from the scored run, one typed word per cue within its time limit, with the retrieval practice rows of the same run. Typed recall has no chance level, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Fewer than 90% of the planned cues presented invalidates, and so does a word typed for fewer than 20% of the cues. Typed answers under 200 ms on at least half of 4 or more answers invalidate. Retrieval practice under 50% correct is flagged and the percentile withheld. A blocked paste or a session run in another language is flagged for review. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Forgetting the test measures never invalidates, but with almost nothing typed a low score cannot be told from no effort. A score over a much shorter session cannot be compared with a full one. The effect is caused by retrieving the practiced members (Anderson, Bjork and Bjork 1994), so when most retrievals failed it may not have had its cause; that session is flagged. A blocked paste can mean answers were being looked up. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. The word lists are English. A session run in another language shows English words to a participant who may not read English fluently, so it is flagged for review. 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Categories | 6 categories (36 pairs, standard) | 4 categories (24 pairs), 6 categories (36 pairs, standard), 8 categories (48 pairs) |
| Study time per pair (seconds) | 5 | 3 to 8 |
| Time per answer (seconds) | 10 | 6 to 20 |
| Delay before the test (seconds) | 60 | 0 to 300 |
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
- Instructions and screens: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. Words and sentences: English.
- 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 Retrieval-Induced Forgetting Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Anderson, Bjork & Bjork, 1994), with the standard settings (categories: 6 categories (36 pairs, standard); study time per pair (seconds): 5; time per answer (seconds): 10; delay before the test (seconds): 60). The main score was retrieval-induced forgetting (recall of unpracticed categories' members tested first minus recall of unpracticed members of practiced categories (Rp-)).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. 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
- Anderson, M. C., & Spellman, B. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case. Psychological Review, 102(1), 68-100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.68
- Murayama, K., Miyatsu, T., Buchli, D., & Storm, B. C. (2014). Forgetting as a consequence of retrieval: A meta-analytic review of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1383-1409. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037505
- Rowland, C. A., Bates, L. E., & DeLosh, E. L. (2014). On the reliability of retrieval-induced forgetting. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1343. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01343
Source papers
- Anderson MC, Bjork RA, Bjork EL (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5):1063-1087.Paradigm source, Young adults
- Murayama K, Miyatsu T, Buchli D, Storm BC (2014). Forgetting as a consequence of retrieval: A meta-analytic review of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5):1383-1409.Paradigm source, Mixed
Questions
How long does the Retrieval-Induced Forgetting Task take?
About 10 to 12 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?
Retrieval-Induced Forgetting, Practice Benefit, Rp+ Recall, Rp- Recall, Nrp Recall, Nrp Recall, Tested First, Nrp Recall, Tested Second, Forgetting Against All Nrp, Practice Success, Wrong Answers, Blank Answers, Time-outs, Median Recall Time, Words Tested, Words Planned, Answers Under 100 ms, Paste Attempts and Delay. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Retrieval-Induced Forgetting Task used in research?
102 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 26% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 183 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Retrieval-Induced Forgetting Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report 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?
Categories (4 categories (24 pairs), 6 categories (36 pairs, standard), 8 categories (48 pairs)), study time per pair (seconds) (3 to 8), time per answer (seconds) (6 to 20) and delay before the test (seconds) (0 to 300). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
The instructions and screens are in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. The words and sentences stay in English, so sessions in other languages are flagged for review. 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.