Experiment # 9

Proactive Inhibition
 Problem Statement

To study the effect of proactive inhibition on subjects ability to recall.

Introduction

Proactive inhibition or proactive interference is an aspect of interference in learning and

is a concept that describes the increased difficulty of learning or remembering a set of words
after that set had been learned in a previous, different context. It applies to free
recall and associative or list learning procedures of assessing memory. Underwood (1957)
provided early evidence that things you've learned before encoding a target item can worsen
recall of that target item. In a meta-analysis of multiple experiments, he showed that the more
lists one had already learned the more trouble one had in recalling the most recent one. This
is proactive interference, where the prior existence of old memories makes it harder to recall
newer memories. Proactive interference can be potently demonstrated with the Brown-Peterson
paradigm (Brown, 1958; Peterson & Peterson, 1958). A single Brown-Peterson trial consists of a
study list, a retention interval and then a recall period. The study list might consist of a handful
of related items (such as a handful of animals or occupations), presented individually every few
seconds. For the duration of a short retention interval, subjects are then asked to perform an
engaging distractor task such as counting backwards in sevens (to minimize rehearsal). Finally,
subjects are asked to recall the items from this study list. Usually, subjects' back side recollection
is nearly perfect for the first trial, but perform increasingly poorly on subsequent trials that use
study lists drawn from the same category. This is the proactive interference effect described
earlier. In other words, even though the lists from previous trials are now irrelevant, the fact that
they were studied at all is somehow making it harder for subjects to recall the most recent list
 Literature Review

When memory for recently studied (target) material is affected by previously studied
(non-target) material, this is known as proactive interference (PI). Whether defective retrieval or
faulty encoding was blamed for PI in earlier reports of the condition varied. Here, we propose an
integrated encoding-retrieval account that assigns roles to each of the 2 different types of
processes involved in the construction of PI. Using a typical PI task, we investigated (a) the
function of encoding processes in PI by recording scalp EEG during study of non-target and
target lists and (b) the involvement of retrieval processes in PI by evaluating recall totals and
reaction latencies in target list recall. We also evaluated the working memory capability of the
participants (WMC). The PI impact manifested behaviorally in reaction latencies and recall
totals, showing PI at the sampling and recovery stages of memory. From non-target to target list
encoding, we observed an increase in theta frequency band (5-8 Hz) electrophysiological
activities in the nervous system, indicating an increase in memory burden during target list
encoding. The outcomes show that PI can be impacted by both defective retrieval and encoding.
They also demonstrate how WMC impacts PI. High-WMC subjects had lower PI for both
encoding and retrieval processes, indicating that they are better able to distinguish between target
and non-target information and concentrate more on the target content. (Kliegl, 2015)

It has long been understood that a significant contributor to forgetting is proactive

interference (PI). By offering a thorough investigation of recall latency distributions during the
development of and release from PI, two experiments were done that provide a different
perspective on the subject. The convolution of the exponential and normal distributions, which
has been demonstrated in the past to accurately depict recognition latency distributions, was used
to explain these functions. According to the fits, the slowing of the exponential retrieval stage
alone is what causes the rise in recall latency linked to the accumulation of PI. Even when a brief
retention interval was employed, the same outcome was observed (and recall probability
remained constant). According to these findings, free-recall latency may be a sensitive indicator
of the larger search set size that is frequently believed to be associated with the development of
PI. (Wixted, 1993)

Methodology
Hypothesis

Retrieval of newly learned material is hindered due to previously learned material.

Independent Variable

The list of non-syllables (List A & B)

Dependent Variable

Subject recall

Sample/subject

This experiment involved a sample of two people, one of them served as the
experimenter and other served as subject.  Edit it accordingly

Instruments/Tools

Two lists of non-syllables, memory drum, paper, pencil, stop watch

Procedure

The trail consist of two groups, on is experimental group and other one is the control
group. There were proactive inhibition sheet were used in the experiment, on the sheets different
words lists were present known as nonsense words. The experiment consist two list of nonsense
lists of words known as the list A and list B. The experimental group had the different learn the
both words list and had to recall the words, there were total seven trail for each words list. First
the researcher call the words list A in front of the participant of the experimental group and the
participant have to recall the words as he/ she can. There were total seven trails. In the next the
researcher will again call the words list B of nonsense and asked participant had to recall them.
After this, the researcher then moved toward the control group and call the list of nonsense
words list B and asked the participant to recall them. And this was also consist of seven trails.
This was the end of round 1. In the Round 2, the researcher again asked the experimental group
participant to recall the meaningful words, and same as to the control group. In the final the
researcher added the results and marked the errors and responses of both group.
 Results

Quantitative Analysis

Table 1

Observation Table of Level 1 (Experimental Group Non-Sense Words List A)

Experimental Group Control Group

Trial
Time (sec) Errors Time (sec) Errors
1 55sec 7
2 44sec 5
3 36sec 4 Rest
4 37sec 1
5 30sec 0
6 12sec 0
7 10sec 3

Table 1 show that the result for the experimental group Non-sense words list A the experimental
group took 55 sec in first trial and the 5 errors while in 7th trial the participant took 10 sec
whereas control group was at rest.
Table 2

Observation Table level 2 (Experimental & Control Group Non-Sense Syllables List B)

Experimental Group Control Group

Trial
Time (sec) Errors Time (sec) Errors

1 55 4 35 3

2 35 3 27 3

3 38 3 20 0

4 28 2 17 0

5 22 0 15 0

6 30 2 11 2

7 18 2 10 1

Table 2 Experimental and control group non-sense syllables list B show that result in
Experimental group participant took 55 sec and have 4 errors while the 7 trail participant took
only 18 sec with 2 errors. Whereas in control group participant took 35 sec in first Trial with 3
errors while in 7th trial the participant took lesser time and lesser errors as compared to
Experimental Group
Table 3

Observation Table level 3 (Experimental & Control Group Recall)

Trial Experimental Group Control Group

Time (sec) Errors Time (sec) Errors

1 48 2 37 1

Table1 level 3 Experimental and control group recall the words. The Experimental group took 48
seconds with 2 errors while the control group took 37 seconds and errors only on 1.

Qualitative Analysis

Discussion

The hypothesis states that “Retrieval of newly learned material is hindered due to
previously learned material. The title of the research article was “Proactive interference and the
dynamics of free recall” and the article is published by (Wixted, 1993) and in this article Three
categories of 24 words each were constructed in such a way that half of the items in the category
differed in a subtle way from the other half. The analysis in this article provides one account of
the growth in T associated with the buildup of PI; it does not explain the corresponding decrease
in the absolute probability of recall. Indeed, an explanation for this effect is somewhat elusive.
So the results of this research article did not support our hypothesis which is “Retrieval of newly
learned material is hindered due to previously learned material.

The hypothesis states that “Retrieval of newly learned material is hindered due to previously
learned material. The title of the research article was “The contribution of encoding and retrieval
processes to proactive interference: and the article is written by (Kliegl, 2015)and in this article
The experiment was composed of two conditions: the PI condition and the no-PI condition. Each
participant took part in both conditions. Subjects always studied a target list. Conditions differed
with respect to what happened before target list encoding. In the PI condition, three preceding
lists were studied, whereas in the no-PI condition, no preceding list was studied, but an unrelated
distractor task was carried out. Regarding recall totals, subjects correctly recalled 60.0% of the
target items in the no-PI condition and 47.1% in the PI condition. The difference of 12.9% was
reliable. So the results of this research article support our hypothesis which is “Retrieval of
newly learned material is hindered due to previously learned material.

References

Kliegl, O., Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2015). The contribution of encoding and retrieval
processes to proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1778–1789

Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (1993). Proactive interference and the dynamics of free
recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5),
1024–1039.