PROACTIVE INHIBITION 1

Experimental Psychology Lab

Experiment No: 9 Proactive inhibition

Submitted by:

Momina zulfiqar 191520189

Saman Shahzad 191520148

Ayesha Mehtab 201520182

Rubab 201520194

Momna Ansar 201520211

Humanities and Social Sciences, GIFT University– Gujranwala

Submitted to: Ma’am Mishal Zoha

Date: 17 March 2023

 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 2

Proactive inhibition

Introduction

Proactive interference is when older memories interfere with the retrieval of newer

memories. Because older memories are often better rehearsed and more strongly cemented in

long-term memory, it is often easier to recall previously learned information rather than more

recent learning. Proactive interference can sometimes make it more difficult to learn new things.

For example, if you move into a new house, you might find yourself accidentally writing your

old address down when filling out forms. The older memory of your previous address makes it

more difficult to recall your new address. This experiment based on interference theory who

states that people forgot not because of memory loss but because other information adds what

people wants to remember.

Whitely (1927) was the first to provide evidence for proactive interference. Whitely

presented participants with a target list of words to be remembered, each of which was centered

on a general theme. For example, all the words would be related to the Civil War. Participants

were also given either a quiz on, or a summary of a topic that was either related or unrelated to

the topic of their word list. This quiz or summary was presented to them right before the target

word list, after the word list, or right before recall. He found that, compared to a control group,

any interpolated information hindered later recall. The participants who were presented with

material related to their lists showed the greatest hindrance as measured by percent correct and

percent error in all temporal conditions.

 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 3

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. In order to determine the process of proactive inhibition, the

experimental technique, probe task is introduced in which participants were given list of words

to memorize and then ask them to recall it. By using this task it is found that the resolution of

proactive inhibition have been identified as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the left

anterior prefrontal cortex.

Proactive interference also affected learning when dealing with multiple lists. The effect

of proactive interference was reduced when the test was immediate and when the new target list

was obviously different from the previously learned lists. Span performance refers to working

memory capacity. Proactive Interference affects susceptibility to span performance limitations,

as span performance in later experimental trials were worse than performance in earlier trials.

With single tasks, proactive interference had less effect on participants with high working

memory spans than those with low ones. With dual tasks, both types were similarly susceptible.

https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Proactive_inhibition

https://escholarship.org/content/qt5zw0470p/qt5zw0470p.pdf?t=mi3qxu

https://www.verywellmind.com/interference-definition-4587808
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 4

Literature review

The study was designed to test the role of proactive interference in working memory

training and transfer. Eighty-six young adults participated in a pretest–posttest design, with ten

training sessions in between. In the two working memory training conditions, subjects performed

an operation span task, with one condition requiring recall of letters on every trial (operation

letters), whereas the other condition alternated between letters, digits, and words as the to-be-

remembered items across trials (operation-mix). Working memory, verbal fluency, and reading

comprehension measures were administered in pretest and posttest sessions. All groups

significantly increased their performance over the ten training sessions. The results indicates that

the transfer to working memory measure high with operational letters as they recall better words

as compared to group with mix operational words. This indicate that proactive interference does

not appear to play a causal role in determining transfer from working memory training.

https://englelab.gatech.edu/articles/2020/Redick%20et%20al_2020_PI.pdf

This study was conducted to demonstrate that subjective expectations were responsible

for the release from proactive interference rather than the actual change in taxonomic

subcategories set by experimenter. The experimental conditions included informing or not

informing subjects of the change in taxonomic subcategory. Significantly higher recall was

found for the condition in which subjects were informed of a change, but no actual change

occurred than in the control condition in which subjects were neither informed of a change nor

did one occurred. However, even when subjects were not told of a change, but a change

occurred, they observed a release from Proactive inhibition.

 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 5

https://scholar.utc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=mps

The present study assessed different factors that were expected to influence the

persistence of proactive interference over an inter-trial interval in the visual recent probes task.

In three experiments, participants encoded arrays of targets and then determined whether a single

probe matched one of those targets. On some trials, the probe matched an item from the previous

trial (a “recent negative”), whereas on other trials the probe matched a more distant item (a “non-

recent negative”).In Experiment 1, factors of array size (the number of targets to be encoded) and

inter-trial interval were manipulated in the recent probes task. There was a reduction in proactive

interference when a longer delay separated trials on one measure, but only when participants

encoded two targets. In Experiment 2, the inter-trial interval length was again manipulated, along

with stimulus novelty (the number of stimuli used in the experiment). Proactive interference was

modestly stronger when a smaller number of stimuli were used throughout the experiment, but

proactive interference was minimally affected by the inter-trial interval. But Experiment 3

showed that proactive interference also resisted disruption produced by a secondary task

presented within the inter-trial interval.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896866/full
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 6

Methodology

Problem Statement

To determine the effect of previous learning on new learning by function of two non-

sense syllables.

Hypothesis

Subjects performance in control group on recall list B will be better than the recall of list

B of subjects in experimental group. 

Independent Variable

The list of non-syllables

Dependent Variable

Subject recall

Sample/subject

Two sample subjects were taken. First Participant was assigned a control group. She

was 21 years old. The second participant was the experimental group and of age 22. Both

participants had no prior knowledge of the experiment.

Instruments/Tools

List of non-syllables, memory drum paper pencil, stop watch

 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 7

Procedure

The experimental group participant is given the list A of non semse syllables to memorize

the 12 words for 1 minute. Once the timer is up, the list of words is taken and subject is asked to

verbalize the words in correct sequence. The errors will be recorded if the wrong word or wrong

sequence is repeated by them. After the seven trials of repeating the lisr A words is completed,

the participant is given the list B having different 12 non-sense syllables to memorize. The seven

trials is taken by repeating the correct sequence of these words. The last step for experimental

group is recording the single trial of recall of List B words without giving them access to the list

for relearning. The control group experience the same treatment except that the list A non-sense

syllables are not introduced to them. At first list B non-sense syllables words are memorized by

control group. The errors in seven trials is recorded. After that, the single recall trial is taken for

the same list B. The comparison is done between the recall of list B of experimental groups and

recall of list B of control group.

 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 8

Results

Quantitative result

Round 1

Table 1
Experimental Group Meaningful Words List (A)

Trail Trail 2 Trail Trail 4 Trail 5 Trail Trail 7

1 3 6

1. CAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. FUR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. MAN 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. SUN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. RAM 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

0. BOY 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

0. FAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. TOY 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 9

0. GOD 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

0. MAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. FAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. SIT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

List B
Experimental Group non-sense Syllables List (A)

Non-sense Syllables  Trail Trail 2 Trail Trail 4 Trail Trail 6 Trail 7

1 3 5

1. MEZ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. XOW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. FIV 0 1 1 0 1 1 1

0. PEQ 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

0. RAV 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0. NUZ 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0. GIR 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

0. SOF 0 1 1 1 1 0 0

0. WEP 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

0. CIB 0 1 1 1 0 1 1

0. XAY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. VUF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 10

List B
Table 3 
Control Group Meaningful List (B)

Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trail Trail 5 Trail 6 Trail 7

4

1. CAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. FUR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. MAN 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. SUN 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

0. RAM 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

0. BOY 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

0. FAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. TOY 0 1 1 0 1 1 1

0. GOD 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 11

0. MAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. FAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0. SIT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Meaningful Words vs Non-sense Syllables

Table 4

List  Tria Responses  Errors

l

Experimental group meaningful   A  1-7 9-13 3-0

Experimental group non-sense B  1-7 6-10 6-2
syllables
Control group meaningful words A 1-7 7-12 5-0

Round 2
Table 5
Experimental Group Meaningful Words List (A)

Recall

0. CA 1
T

0. FUR 1

0. MA 1
N

0. SUN 1

0. RA 1
M
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 12

0. BO 1
Y

0. FAT 0

0. TO 0
Y

0. GO 0
D

0. MA 1
T

0. FAN 0

0. SIT 0

Table 6
List B
Control Group Meaningful List (B)

Recall

0. CAT 1

0. FUR 1

0. MA 1
N

0. SUN 1

0. RA 0
M
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 13

0. BOY 1

0. FAT 1

0. TOY 1

0. GOD 1

0. MAT 1

0. FAN 1

0. SIT 1

Experimental vs Control Group 

Trial Responses  Errors

Experimental group meaningful 1 7 5

words
Control group meaningful words 1 11 1

Experimental Vs Control Group 

Groups  List  Trail Response Errors

s

Experimental group Meaningful words A 1-7 9-13 3-0

Experimental group non-sense B 1-7 6-10 6-2

syllables

Control group Meaningful words  A 1-7 7-12 5-0

Experimental group Meaningful words A 1 7 5

Control group Meaningful words B 1 11 1

 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 14

Qualitative result

The errors and responses were recorded for both groups. List A of meaningful words and

their recall as well as list B of non-sense syllables from experimental group. List A of

meaningful words from the control group is recorded. The errors and responses from both groups

are compared on list A. The single trial recall from the experimental group and the seven trial

responses from the control group . Our results conclude that the errors of meaningful words of

the control group (5-0) consist of fewer errors as compared to the recall of the experimental

group’s errors of meaningful words (5). The mean of control group errors in list A is less than

the errors in experimental group recall of list A.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study is to determine the effect of new learning on prior

learning by function of two non-sense syllables. This is done by introducing new learning of

non-sense syllables to the participant of Experimental group and comparing the recall in both

groups. The new learning here inhibits the retrieval of prior knowledge. The hypothesis of our

study states that performance in control group on recall list A will be better than the recall of

subjects in experimental group. The errors for recall of meaningful words for experimental group

will be comparatively more than the errors of Control group. The reason behind this is that the

control group is not introduced to the new Knowledge of non-sense syllables so their prior

learning remain unaffected. Previous studies are consistent with the findings of current study. A

study (vasic, 2018) was conducted on twenty five participant with average age of 15. The

experiment included three consecutive tasks; an initial learning task, an intermediate interference
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 15

task introduced within a retention interval (=time between initial learning and final recall test)

with four different delays of either 0, 3, 6, or 9 min after the initial learning task, and the

concluding recall task to test memory performance immediately after the 3 min interference task.

The control experiment was identical to the interference experiment with one exception: No

interference task had to be executed in the retention interval. In a control experiment the

interference periods were replaced by rest periods without any interference. Unfamiliar Japanese

words used on German speaking participants for interference. The study we focused on negative

effects of retroactive interference at different time points during the first 12 min of the memory

consolidation period after learning of German–Japanese vocabulary word pairs. We found that

an interference task, where participants had to learn a different set of German–Japanese word

pairs, reduced learning performance of the previous set by up to 20%. Thus, the previous

learning was affected by new learning in experimental group and without new learning, the

errors of recall was lesser in control group as the learning was not inhibited.

Limitation

The first limitation of the current study can be that the both participant may have

individual differences or one may have better memory skills which can distort the result. The

accuracy of result can also be affected by noise and distraction in the environment. The

pronunciation of non-sense syllables is interpreted differently by every person. It can affect the

learning and memory.

 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 16

Recommendation

The further researchers can include the standard way of conducting the experiment by

innovating and introducing the computerized representation of stimulus. The researcher must

ensure that the surrounding is quiet and peaceful before conducting the experiment.

Proactive inhibition
 PROACTIVE INHIBITION 17

References
ankala, v. (2011). Retroactive Interference and Forgetting. Undergraduate Journal of Mathematical
Modeling One + Two, 3(2). doi:10.5038/2326-3652.3.2.4

boenniger, m. e. (2021). Ten German versions of Rey’s auditory verbal learning test: Age and sex effects
in 4,000 adults of the Rhineland Study. 637-653.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2021.1984398

murphy, d. c. (2022, september). Differential effects of proactive and retroactive interference in value-
directed remembering for younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pag0000707

Retroactive inhibition. (n.d.). Retrieved from psychology wiki:

https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Retroactive_inhibition

Retroactive Interference. (2022, july 18). Retrieved from practicalpie:

https://practicalpie.com/retroactive-interference/

Smirnov, A. (1973). Conditions for Retroactive Inhibition. In A. Smirnov, problems of the psychology of
memory (pp. 279–298).

vasic, z. e. (2018). When Learning Disturbs Memory – Temporal Profile of Retroactive Interference of
Learning on Memory Formation. frontiers in psychology, 9.
doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00082