This forgetting measure was based on an associative memory accuracy index in which we corrected for source false alarms by subtracting the proportion of trials of a given condition that were given an incorrect source response from the proportion of trials afforded a correct source response for that condition. Thus, our index of associative forgetting was the following: (associative memory accuracy on test 1 − associative memory accuracy on test 2)/(associative memory accuracy on test 1). Greenhouse-Geisser-corrected degrees this website of freedom are reported

for repeated-measures ANOVAs where appropriate. As expected, associative memory performance decreased across tests, F(1, 23) = 160.6, p < 0.001. Analysis of associative recognition performance on each test separately

revealed main effects of condition (LD, SD, and SS) for both objects and scenes (immediate test: for object trials, F(2, 45.7) = 58.8, p < 0.001, for scene trials, F(1.9, 42.8) = 32.9, p < 0.001; 24 hr test: for object trials, F(2, 45.7) = 63.2, p < 0.001, for scene trials, F(1.9, 44.1) = 32.7, p < 0.001). These effects manifest as better associative recognition for both the LD and SD trials compared to SS trials for both object and scene pairs (for the immediate test, LD versus SS objects: F(1, 23) = 81.4, p < 0.001, SD versus SS objects: F(1, 23) = 98.9, p < 0.001, LD versus SS scenes: F(1, 23) = 54.5, p < 0.001, SD versus SS scenes: F(1, 23) = 44.9, p < 0.001; for the 24 hr test, LD versus SS objects: F(1, 23) = 108.7, p < 0.001, SD versus SS objects: F(1, 23) = 80.5, p < 0.001, LD versus SS scenes: F(1, 23) = 40.3, p < 0.001, Crizotinib SD versus SS scenes: F(1, 23) = 54.7, p < 0.001). These results were not surprising given that both LD and SD trials were studied twice, while the SS trials were only studied once. While no differences in associative recognition between object and scene trials were identified on the immediate test, F(1, 23) = 3.2, p > 0.08, on the 24 hr test, scene trials were associated

with better associative recognition below performance than object trials, F(1, 23) = 10.3, p < 0.005. See Figure 2 for 24 hr associative recognition performance and Figure S1 available online for immediate associative recognition performance. Consistent with our predictions, based on the findings of Litman and Davachi (2008), LD object pairs were associated with better associative memory than SD object pairs, t(23) = 1.9, p < 0.05 on the 24 hr test. Crucially, LD object pairs were also associated with significantly reduced forgetting over the 2 test days compared to the SD object pairs, t(23) = 2.0, p < 0.05 (see Figure 2), consistent with the notion that reactivation after a longer intervening interval was associated with greater consolidation. Interestingly, we did not see the parallel effect for scene trials. Specifically, there was no significant difference between the LD and SD scene conditions in associative memory performance on the 24 hr test, t(23) = 0.