Proactive Inhibition
Group Members
Bilal Pervaiz (191520153)
Fiza Waheed (212520008)
Rubab Ahsan (212520005)
Ruhma (212520003)
Department Of Psychology, GIFT University
BS Clinical Psychology
Mam Javeria Nouman
March 19, 2023
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)
Three experiments had been carried out to decide the relationship between certain variables
influencing proactive inhibition in long-term retention of lists of verbal items and the have an
effect on of these variables on non-permanent retention of single items. More particularly,
retention of single objects over 18 sec. should, if the laws of long-term retention are applied,
decrease with number of preceding items to which S has been exposed. In addition, quantity of
forgetting be a direct joint characteristic of variety of previous items and size of the retention
interval. In Exp. 1 each S was consonant syllables singly, with retention being measured after 3,
9, and 18 sec. Forgetting of the first object presented (T-1) was once much less than for the 2nd
(T-2) or 1/3 (T-3) item, but forgetting of the latter (T-2 vs. T-3) did now not differ. On all three
tests forgetting used to be directly associated to size of retention interval, but no interplay used to
be evident between number of preceding gadgets and size of retention interval. In Exp. two a
greater degree of preliminary learning of the objects was once achieved. Forgetting increased at
once as a feature of range of previous objects presented. The predicted interaction was once
indeterminate when you consider that retention used to be in actuality one hundred percent on T-
1 for all retention intervals. Experiment three examined retention of six successive items over 3-
and 18-sec. intervals. Retention after 3 sec. showed an initial drop and then an upward jab over
the six tests, the upward jostle suggesting a exercise effect. Forgetting over 18 sec. expanded
immediately from T-1 to T-6 and there used to be no indication that a steady amount of proactive
interference had been reached. The interplay between size of retention interval and number of
viable proactively interfering objects was very evident. The results were interpreted to suggest
that proactive inhibition in short-term memory of single gadgets follows the equal laws as
proactive inhibition in long-term memory of lists of items. (Geoffrey Keppel, 1962)
Compared to different cognitive functions in schizophrenia, evidence suggests that verbal
reminiscence is in particular impaired. This study used the California Verbal Learning Test
(CVLT) to examine proactive inhibition (PI) and semantic processing in verbal reminiscence in
29 sufferers with schizophrenia and 29 healthy controls. Patients confirmed substantially much
less PI, but also did now not prepare (cluster) their recall according to semantic category.
Controls and patients tested small retroactive inhibition (RI) results regardless of semantic
content. Although each corporations made comparable kinds and numbers of free recall intrusion
errors, patients dedicated greater phonemic and no shared attention errors. Results advise that
decreased semantic processing averted construct of PI, and contributes to faulty memory in
schizophrenia. The anatomic-physiologic abnormalities that underlie these findings may also be
specially pronounced in prefrontal and temporal-parietal cortical areas. (JINS, 1996)
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.
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.
The hypothesis states that “Retrieval of newly learned material is hindered due to previously
learned material. The title of the research article was “Proactive inhibition in short-term retention
of single items” and the article is written by (Geoffrey Keppel, 1962) and in this article result
suggest that were interpreted to suggest that proactive inhibition in short-term memory of single
gadgets follows the equal laws as proactive inhibition in long-term memory of lists of items. 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 “Proactive inhibition and semantic
organization Relationship with verbal memory in patients with schizophrenia” and the article is
written by Gur, R. (1996) and in this article results suggest that reduced semantic processing
prevented build of PI, and contributes to defective memory in schizophrenia. The anatomic-
physiologic abnormalities that underlie these findings may be particularly pronounced in
prefrontal and temporal-parietal cortical areas they did not 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),
Geoffrey Keppel, B. J. (1962). Proactive inhibition in short-term retention of single items.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 153-161.
Kareken, D., Moberg, P., & Gur, R. (1996). Proactive inhibition and semantic organization
Relationship with verbal memory in patients with schizophrenia. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 2(6)
