Critical issues in interference theory

Postman, Leo; Underwood, Benton J.

doi:10.3758/bf03198064

Cited by 375 publications

(281 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

261

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All rearranged pairs were made from forward-going pairs in the study list (i.e., the cue term from pair n was repaired with the response term from pair n ϩ 1, in the case of near re-pairings, or n ϩ 9, in the case of far re-pairings). This was done because previous work suggests that cue words serve as a conceptual peg onto which response terms are bound (Lambert & Paivio, 1956;Paivio, 1991), and thus, if participants were to form associa- Note. Vocabulary scores are from the Shipley (1946) test.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hyper-binding across time: Age differences in the effect of temporal proximity on paired-associate learning.

Campbell¹,

Trelle²,

Hasher³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Older adults show hyper- (or excessive) binding effects for simultaneously and sequentially presented distraction. Here, we addressed the potential role of hyper-binding in paired-associate learning. Older and younger adults learned a list of word pairs and then received an associative recognition task in which rearranged pairs were formed from items that had originally occurred either close together or far apart in the study list. Across 3 experiments, older adults made more false alarms to near re-pairings than to far re-pairings. Younger adults, on the other hand, showed no difference in false alarms to the 2 types of rearranged pairs. These findings may be tied to the greater tendency of older adults to maintain access to recently attended information, inadvertently forming broader associations across time, than is the case for younger adults.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hyper-binding across time: Age differences in the effect of temporal proximity on paired-associate learning.

Campbell¹,

Trelle²,

Hasher³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High spans may therefore have used controlled attention to inhibit competition from prior list items but were foiled in doing so under retrieval load. Indeed, many theories assume that interference effects reflect a momentary disruption of retrieval (e.g., J. R. Anderson, 1983; M. C. Mensink & Raaijmakers, 1988;Nelson, Schreiber & McEvoy, 1992;Postman & Underwood, 1973). By these views, interference may arise under certain encoding conditions, but it does not stem from an encoding failure per se.…”

Section: Interference Resistance At Encoding and Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.

Kane¹,

Engle²

2000

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

484

498

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Two experiments examined how individual differences in working-memory capacity (WM) relate -to proactive interference (PI) susceptibility. We tested high and low WM-span participants in a PI-buildup task under singletask or dual-task ("load") conditions. In Experiment 1, a finger-tapping task was imposed during encoding anti retrieval of each list; in Experiment 2, tapping was required during encoding or retrieval. In both experiments, low spans showed greater PI than did high spans under no load, but groups showed equivalent PI under divided attention. Load increased PI only for high spans, suggesting they use attention at encoding and retrieval to combat N. In Experiment 2, only low spans showed a dual-task cost on List 1 memory, before PI built up. Results indicate a role for attentional processing, perhaps inhibitory in nature, at encoding and retrieval, and are discussed with respect to theories of WM and prefrontal cortex function. Article:The central executive component of working memory is now a focus of theoretical and empirical interest. Although its functions are still under-specified, they are most often characterized as "attentional"

show abstract

“…3 An alternative viewpoint is that the cognitive primitive underlying performance on both WMS and many other tasks is the inhibitory-based ability to delete irrelevant information from working memory, thus reducing competition (Hasher, Zacks, & May, 1999;Lustig et al, 2001;Zacks & Hasher, 1994). Competition may stem from previous occasions in a laboratory, as the present study suggests, from a previous list of items (see Postman & Underwood, 1973) or even, as in WMS tasks and other short-term memory tasks, from previous sets within a single series (Keppel & Underwood, 1962;May et al, 1999). In any event, it is increasingly clear that WMS scores do not measure a single construct such as capacity but instead are determined by multiple factors, at least one of which is proactive interference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, the reduction in WMS seen here as a result of prior experience is consistent with other recent studies suggesting that WMS tasks are vulnerable to interference. For example, variables that influence PI, including similarity between competitors and number of potential competitors, are now known to affect working memory span tasks much as they do other long-and short-term memory tasks (see Conrad & Hull, 1964;Postman & Underwood, 1973;Shah & Miyake, 1996;Young & Supa, 1941). Furthermore, manipulations intended to reduce the impact of PI have been shown to boost span scores substantially (Lustig et al, 2001;May et al, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, reducing the amount of PI in WMS tasks reduces the ability of WMS to predict performance on other measures (Lustig et al, 2001;see Dempster & Corkill, 1999). Finally, WMS scores are influenced by factors affecting the buildup of PI, such as the distinctiveness or similarity between the to-be-remembered items or between the to-be-processed and to-bestored items (Conrad & Hull, 1964;May et al, 1999;Postman & Underwood, 1973;Shah & Miyake, 1996;Young & Supa, 1941).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Working Memory Span: The Effect of Prior Learning

Lustig

Hasher

2002

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work suggests that working memory span (WMS) tasks are not simple measures of the capacity to simultaneously store and process new information. Instead, these measures may be influenced by numerous factors, including proactive interference (PI). The current study examined whether WMS, like other memory tasks, is also influenced by PI from prior memory experiments. Experimentally experienced and naive participants completed a speaking span task. Span scores were lower for experienced than for naive participants, but other cognitive scores were not. In combination with other work, these results suggest that WMS estimates are not pure measures of capacity and may be partially determined by PI.

show abstract

Critical issues in interference theory

Cited by 375 publications

References 91 publications

Hyper-binding across time: Age differences in the effect of temporal proximity on paired-associate learning.

Hyper-binding across time: Age differences in the effect of temporal proximity on paired-associate learning.

Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.

Working Memory Span: The Effect of Prior Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About