Retroactive and proactive inhibition of verbal learning.

Slamecka, Norman J.; Ceraso, John

doi:10.1037/h0048601

Cited by 70 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In proactive interference the associations acquired during Phase 1 interfere with the retrieval (or acquisition) of the target associations trained during Phase 2, and in retroactive interference the associations acquired during Phase 2 interfere with the retrieval of the target associations trained during Phase 1. The concepts of proactive interference and retroactive interference developed primarily within the early studies of verbal behavior, especially those using paired-associate stimuli (for reviews, see Slamecka & Ceraso, 1960;Swenson, 1941). In a typical study of retroactive cue interference in verbal paired-associate learning, human participants were first presented with a list of pairedassociates (e.g., words, nonsense syllables, or trigrams) of the form A-B (e.g., cat-tree), then a second list of the form C-B (e.g., horse-tree).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Amundson

Miller

2007

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two lick suppression studies were conducted with water-deprived rats to investigate the influence of spatial similarity in cue interaction. Experiment 1 assessed the influence of similarity of the spatial origin of competing cues in a blocking procedure. Greater blocking was observed in the condition in which the auditory blocking cue and the auditory blocked cue originated at the same spatial location. Recent investigations have demonstrated that manipulations that impact competition between cues trained together have similar effects on interference between cues trained apart. Therefore, Experiment 2 investigated the influence of similarity of the spatial origin in proactive interference of Pavlovian conditioning by separately pairing two auditory cues with a common outcome, originating at the same spatial location or different spatial locations. Greater proactive interference was observed in the condition in which the interfering cue and target cue originated at the same spatial location. The results are considered in light of the possibility that a similar mechanism may underlie interference between cues trained apart and cue competition between cues trained together.Cue competition refers to situations in which the presence of a nontarget stimulus during reinforced training of a target cue attenuates conditioned responding to the target cue at the time of test. In other words, when two cues are compounded and paired with an outcome, an inverse relationship is observed between the behavioral control exerted by each of the cues when tested alone. Cue interference here refers to situations in which a target cue is paired with a reinforcer in Phase 1 (or 2) and a nontarget cue is paired with a reinforcer in Phase 2 (or 1), such that the nontarget cue trials impair the behavioral control of the target cue that would otherwise result. Alternatively stated, cue competition refers to a deleterious interaction between cues trained together, whereas cue interference refers to a deleterious interaction between cues trained apart.The contemporary associative analysis of cue interaction has focused almost exclusively on the examination of cues that are presented in compound at some point during training (e.g., blocking, overshadowing, and the relative stimulus validity effect). In a blocking preparation (Kamin, 1968;Lashley, 1942), the blocking stimulus (A) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in an initial phase of treatment (i.e., A-US trials in Phase 1). The blocking cue (A) is then paired with the blocked cue (X) and the US in a subsequent phase of treatment (i.e., AX-US trials in Phase 2). The compound training trials facilitate Cue A competing with Cue X; thus, at the time of test weaker responding to Cue X is observed relative to a control condition that had not received prior training with A. The ability of a theory to account for such interaction between cues presented together is considered a critical benchmark for contemporary models Mailing Address: Ralph R. Miller,

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Amundson

Miller

2007

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A substantial body of evidence on interference between cues trained apart comes also from the classical studies on retroactive interference in the verbal learning tradition (e.g., Slamecka & Ceraso, 1960;Underwood, 1966). Although researchers in the interference tradition more extensively studied retroactive interference with the A-B, A-C paradigm (i.e., two different outcomes associated to a common cue; e.g., Bäuml, 1996Bäuml, , 1998Chandler, 1993;Chandler & Gargano, 1998), many experiments have shown that interference can also take place when two different cues are associated to a common outcome (i.e., the A-B, C-B paradigm; see, e.g., Abra, 1967;Cheung & Goulet, 1968;Johnston, 1968;Keppel, Bonge, Strand, & Parker, 1971;Schwartz, 1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation

Escobar

Pineño

Matute

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…More specifically, we were concerned with the effects of learning a second solution to a problem on recall of the first solution. The experimental design that is most often used to test this hypothesis is the retroactive design (Deese and Hulse, 1967;Slamecka and Ceraso, 1960), in which an experimental group learns A, then learns B, and is then tested on A, while a control group learns A, then rests (i.e., performs a neutral task), and is finally tested on A. Performance on the A test can be compared for the two groups to provide evidence of transfer.…”

Section: Retroactive Interference Of Similar Methods To Teach Translamentioning

confidence: 99%

Retroactive Interference of Similar Methods to Teach Translation of Base Systems in Mathematics

Barszcz¹,

Gentile²

1976

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retroactive and proactive inhibition of verbal learning.

Cited by 70 publications

References 82 publications

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation

Retroactive Interference of Similar Methods to Teach Translation of Base Systems in Mathematics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About