General Problem: On memory and forgetting.

Specific Problem: Experimentally determine the effect of proactive

inhibition on the capacity of memorization of the subject through visual
presentation of stimuli.

Basic Concept:
In psychological terms, the facility of the mind to store the past experiences are
learning and to reproduce them for use when required at a later time is called
“memory”.

Ryburn (1956} endorses the meaning of memory in following words:

“The power that we have to store our experiences and to bring them into the
field of our consciousness some after the experiences have occurred is termed
memory”.

Our mind possesses a special ability by virtue of a which every experience or

learning leaves behind memory traces or images, which are conserved in the
form of engrams. The process of memorization thus begins with learning of
experiencing some thing and ends with its retrieval and reproduction. Therefore,
memory is said to involve four stages-learning or experiencing some thing, its
retention, recognition and recall.

As time marches on, forgetting also marches with it, but one feels that the time
is not a force that does anything. Some thing that goes in on in the time must be
the cause of forgetting. We know that suitably spaced reviews will prevent
forgetting and that discuss the absence of reviewing in a necessary condition for
forgetting.

So, the law of disuse has empirical and practical validity. In the words of
MUNN (1967):

“Forgetting is the loss, permanent or temporary of the ability to recall or

recognise something learned earlier.”

Forgetting has several causes of which the most important ones are – faulty
memory process, lack of knowledge, interference, retrieval problems, motivated
forgetting, trace decay, repress etc.,
Interference is an explanation for forgetting in long term memory. The basic
theory states that interference occurs when information that is similar in format
gets in the of the information that someone is trying to recall. It is phenomenon
of human memory involving the learning of new materials where the learning of
new information or behaviour interacts with old memories, thoughts and
behaviour that come from past learning or interferences with the acquisitions or
compressing of the new information.

Proactive inhibition refers to the tendency of previous learned material to hinder

subsequent learning. It is the tendency of previously learned material to hinder
subsequent retrieval of newer memories of newly learned material of the two
effects of interference theory, proactive interference is considered the less
problematic type of interference compared to retroactive inhibition. It has been
hypothesized that forgetting working memories would be non-existent if not for
proactive interference.

Proactive interference builds up occurs with memories being learned in similar

context. A common example is observing previous motor abilities from our
skills interfering with a new set of motor abilities being learned in another skill
from the proactive interference is also associated with proper list discrimination,
which occurs when participants are asked to judge whether an item has
appeared on a previously learned list. If the items or pairs to be learned are
conceptually related to one another, then proactive interference has a greater
effect. Delos Wilkens discovered that proactive interference using a list of items
to be remembered. As expected, recall was hampered by increasing the number
of items in a given list. Proactive interference also affected learning when
dealing with multiple lists. Researchers had participants learn a list of paired
adjectives. The experimenters would consider a list to be learnt if the
participants could correctly recall eight of ten items. After two days,
participants could recall close to 70% of the items. However, those asked to
memorize a new list after learning the first one had a recall of only

Those who learned a third list recalled 25% of the items. Therefore, proactive
interference affected the correct recall of the list learned, because of the
previous one or two. In terms of forgetting the affect of proactive interference
was reduced when the test was immediate and when the new target list was
obviously different from the previous ones.
Proactive interference has shown an effect during the learning phase in terms of
stimuli at the acquisition and retrieval with behavioural terms for humans or
found by Castor, Ortegoes and Matute. With 106 participants, they investigated
two main questions: one, if two cues are learned as predicators of the same
outcome (one after the other), would be the second cue come association be
rewarded? And secondly, once the second association is fully learned will there
still be an effect on subsequent trials? The research, as predicted showed
retarded and impairment in associations due to the effect of proactive
interference.

AIM:
The current study ends experimentally determine the effect of proactive
inhibition on the capacity of memorization of the subject through visual
presentation of stimuli.

Preliminaries:
Name of the subject: Tadiparthi Geetika.

Age of the subject: 25 Years Old.

Sex of the subject: Female.

Education of the subject: Physiotherapist.

Language known to subject: English, Hindi, Bengali, Telugu.

Condition of the: Fresh and cooperative

Date of the experiment: 06/04/21

Time of the experiment: 3:40- 4:20 PM

Materials Required:
 Lists of nonsense syllables
 Strips of paper
 Stop-watch
 Screen
 Paper window
  Pen, pencil, eraser, scale

Plan of the Experiment:

a. Experimental Design:

Independent Variable (IV)

Proactive inhibition

Levels of IV

a. Absence of interpolated task between learning and recall of original task

b. Presence of interpolated task between learning and recall of original task

Dependent Variable (DV)

Capacity of memorization

b. Plan of the Experiment- General Framework:

Preparatory Phase

 Visual presentation of a list of 10 nonsense syllables to find out the

memory span of the subject (by the method of retained number)
 Length of the list = memory span×3

Rest for 5 min

Experimental Condition

 List A will be presented visually till 100% criterion of mastery

 Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
 Rest for 10 min

Control Condition

 Non-interfering filler task will be employed (duration will the time

taken to learn List A)
 List C will be presented visually till 100% criterion of mastery
 Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
 Recall of List C will be taken

c. Plan of the Experiment – Specific Framework:

Stimulus Response Response Measure

Visual Stimuli:
Lists of nonsense  Percentage of
syllables recall in each trial
 Accuracy of
Set 1: reproduction in
 List A is presented  The subject PCT
for a number of memorizes the list  Accuracy of
trials until 100% and reproduces it reproduction of
learning occurs. mechanically List B and C in
The time taken is (writes it down) in recall after the
recorded. correct order. PCT, that is,
 List B is presented  After 100% percentage of
immediately after learning, the proactive
PCT of List A. subject recalls and inhibition.
 List A is presented reproduces the list
 for a number of (A) for PCT.
trials until 100%  The subject
learning occurs. memorizes List B
and reproduces it
mechanically
(writes it down) in
correct order.
 After 100%
learning, the
subject recalls and
reproduces List B
for PCT.
 The subject recalls
and reproduces
List B.

Set 2:
 The subjects is  The subject
engaged in non- doodles or draws
interfering filler
lines as a non-
task (time period
will be the time interfering filler
taken to learn List task
A).  The subject
 List C is presented memorizes the list
for a number of and reproduces it
trials until 100% mechanically
learning occurs.
(writes it down) in
correct order.
 After 100%
learning, the
subject recalls and
reproduces the list
for a PCT.

 The subject recalls

and reproduces list
C once again.
 d. Controlling Techniques of Extraneous Variables:

Extraneous Variables Controlling Techniques

Subject-relevant variable:
Age, sex, educational level, individual Kept constant (since N=1)
differences
Motivation, attention Uniform and repeated instructions
were given throughout

Stimulus-relevant variable:
Length of the list Kept constant
Difficulty level of the list Kept uniform
Duration of presentation of one Kept constant at 2 seconds
syllable and gap between presentation
of two syllables

Situation-relevant variable:
Noise Minimized
Illumination Kept constant
Temperature Kept constant

Sequence-relevant variable:
Practice effect and fatigue effect
A rest pause of 10 minutes is provided
Between the two sets
Formation of association between No syllable is repeated in a list or in a
different syllables different list

Instructions:
For immediate memory span

“Please sit comfortably and be very attentive. I shall show you some
meaningless syllables one at a time through paper window. After I have finished
showing the nonsense syllables to you, you have to write down those syllables
in correct order on a piece of paper provided by me.”

For experimental condition

“Please sit comfortably, relax and be very attentive. I will present to you a list
of meaningless words. Each time you will have to memorize the list and
reproduce it correctly in serial order. You will be shown the list continuously
until you have learnt the list completely. After you have completely learnt the
list, you will have to recall it and write it down correctly in serial order from
your memory without seeing the list. Immediately after that you will be shown
another list of meaningless words and the similar procedure will be followed.
But this time, after you have learnt the list, you will be asked to recall the list, in
the correct order, from your memory, without seeing the list, twice. Please
report me immediately if you have any difficulty.”

For control condition

“Please sit comfortably, relax and be very attentive. I will be engaging in some
drawing (doodling/drawing lines) for some time period. You will start doing
that when I ask you to start and will stop it when I ask you to do so. After that I
will present to you a list of meaningless words. Each time you will have to
memorize the list and reproduce it correctly in serial order. You will be shown
the list continuously until you have learnt the list completely. After you have
completely learnt the list, you will have to recall it and write it down correctly,
in serial order, from your memory, without seeing the list, twice. Please report
me immediately if you have any difficulty.”

“After the experiment is over, you will have to give me a written account of
your feelings and experiences during the experiment.”

Precautions:
The following precautions are maintained while conducting the experiment:

a. The paper window should be made accurately so that the subject can see
each syllable distinctively
b. Presentation of syllable will be one at a time
c. The screen should be placed in front of the subject so that the subject
cannot see the list beforehand
d. While preparing the list an adequate gap between two syllables need to be
maintained.
 e. An equal time interval of 2 seconds between two nonsense syllables
should be maintained while presenting the list.
f. Each syllable is exposed for 2 seconds to the subject
g. The experiment should be conducted in a well illuminated, calm and quiet
atmosphere
h. Rest of 10 min should be provided to the subject after each set of the
experiment
i. Non-interfering task (doodling/drawing lines) will be employed during
the rest period before the start of List C for specified time duration.
j. Time taken to learn List A should be carefully noted down.

Rules for Preparing Nonsense Syllables:

a. Each syllable is made by three letters with one vowel in between two
consonants (CVC method).
b. Syllables should be written in capital letters.
c. Syllables should be meaningless so that the subject is unable to make any
association.
d. The initial consonant of a syllable is not identical with the final consonant
of the same syllable of the list.
e. No two consecutive syllables in the list should have the same initial
consonant or the same vowel.
f. The last consonant of any syllable should not be the same as the first
consonant of the next syllable.
g. The order of consonant and vowel should be avoided
h. The vowels are placed at random.
i. W, X, Y, Z, and Q should be avoided from the list.
j. Either C/K or G/J should be used in each syllable.
k. H should not be used at the end of any syllable.
l. There should not be any repetition and rhythmic presentation in the list.

Procedure:
Rapport was established with the subject and necessary instructions were
provided.
The immediate memory span of the subject was found out first. The subject was
shown a list containing 10 nonsense syllables and was asked to reproduce it in
serial order. The number of syllables recalled correctly is the memory span of
the subject. Length of each list was taken as thrice of the memory span.

After providing 5 minute rest to the subject, List A was presented to the subject
till 100% learning occurred. PCT was taken immediately. The time taken to
learn List A was noted down. Immediately, the subject was presented with List
B till 100% learning occurred. Then, PCT was taken followed by recall of List
B.

After providing sufficient rest to subject, the subject was asked to engage in
some doodling or drawing lines on a piece of paper for some specific time
duration. The duration was the time taken to learn list A. Then, the subject was
presented with list C till 100% learning occurred. PCT was taken followed by
recall of list C.

Finally, the data was calculated to find out the percentage of proactive
inhibition. The findings were represented graphically and interpreted.

Report of the Subject:

In the experiment the experimenter asked me to memorize a list of meaningless
words. I was helped with all the other instructions. The experimenter was very
friendly and cooperative. I memorized a long list of syllables and had to
reproduce the. I was provided with another few lists and had to do the same. My
experimenter helped me to do this and I had a nice time trying it.

Data and Calculations:

Table 1: sowing determination of memory span of the subject

Nonsense Syllables Subject’s reproduction

KOC KOC 
FIS FIS 
GEP GEP 
LAJ LAJ ×
RUD RUD ×
BOF BOF ×
HUS HUS ×
MEP MEP ×
 DIT DIT ×
RAF RAF ×

Number of correct reproductions = 3

Memory span of the subject = 3×3=9

Length of the list = 9 Nonsense syllables

Table 2: showing findings on the experimental condition

List A T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 PCT List T-1 T-2 T-3 PCT Recall
B of list
B
GOF      BEV     
MAR      LAF     
GED     × VIC     ×
GAB ×     MUP ×    
MEC × ×    DOF × ×   
JUT × ×    HEV × ×   
BAV × × ×   TUR ×    ×
HOB × × ×  × DAV     ×
SEG × × ×   GUC     
No. of
correct 3 4 6 9 7 5 7 9 9 6
response
% of 33.3% 44.4% 66.6% 100% 77.7% 55.5% 77.7% 100% 100% 66.6%
correct
response

Table 3: showing findings on the control condition

Rest List C T-1 T-2 T-3 PCT Recall of

List C
The subject RUL     
was engaged in GOF     
some non- PIB     ×
interfering MAF ×   × ×
filler tasks for SEV × ×  × 
the time taken LUD × ×   
to learn list A, HUS ×    
that is: 5min FEJ     
15seconds VOP     
No. of correct 5 7 9 7 7
response
% of correct 55.5% 77.7% 100% 77.7% 77.7%
response

Calculation of proactive inhibition:

Formula: (C-E÷C) ×100

Where, C= number of correct recall in the control condition

E= number of correct recall in the experimental condition

⸫ Proactive inhibition= 8%

Table 4: showing comparison between the experimental condition and control

condition and the percentage of proactive inhibition

% of correct Forgetting
recall Due to time Due to time Proactive
Condition (delayed gap gap and inhibition
recall) proaction
Control 77.7% 22.3% - -
condition
Experimental 66.6% - 33.4% 8%
condition
Graphs:

Interpretation:
In this experiment, an attempt was made to determine the effect of proactive
inhibition on memorization capacity and forgetting of the subject.

Form the comparative chart it is observed that, in control condition the

percentage of correct recall (delayed recall after the retention interval) is 77.7%
and forgetting (due to time gap) is 22.3%. In experimental condition the
percentage of correct recall (delayed recall after learning another list of
nonsense syllable in retention interval) is 66.6% and forgetting (due to time gap
and proaction) is 33.4%. From the appropriate calculations the compiled
percentage of retroactive inhibition is 8%.

Comparing the percentage of correct recall, it may be said that, in this

experiment, proactive inhibition was prevalent as the percentage of correct
recall decreased in the experimental condition than the control condition, where
the subject had to learn another list during the retention interval.
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.

Experiment-

A simple yet powerful method to investigate whether or not subsequent tasks or

material directly affect forgetting is to include a filled and an unfilled delay
interval between item presentation and recall. If indeed forgetting occurs solely
as a function of time, no difference should be observed following the unfilled
and filled conditions. If, however subsequent material/tasks do play a role in
forgetting, recall should be higher following the unfilled condition.

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.

This will help to explain the present observations of this study, as here,
retention interval with rest only has come out to yield, better recall than after
retention interval where the subject had to learn another list, and this decrease in
the amount of correct recall after a retention interval in which the subject had to
learn another list, indicates the presence of proactive inhibition.

Conclusion:
It may thus be concluded, that for the present subject, in the present experiment,
proactive inhibition was present.

BY- TADIPARTHI RITIKA