The concurrent effects of proactive and retroactive inhibition.

Seidel, Robert J.

doi:10.1037/h0038958

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Treatment (PL) X treatment (IL) X subjects' parametric analysis of variance on the recall (first relearning trial) data showed the main effects of PL and IL (0 and 1 list in each case) were both significant beyond the .001 level (F = 15.71 and 47.94,for PL and IL respectively), and the interaction of PL and IL was insignificant (F = 0.024). These findings are similar to Seidel's (1959). IL also produced significant differences on the second and third relearning trials but PL did not.…”

Section: Recall and Relearningsupporting

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The combined effect of retroaction and proaction.

Rj¹,

Gn²

1962

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FORGETTING HAS LONG BEEN ATTRIBUTED to retroactive inhibition (RI), with a minor role assigned to proactive inhibition (PI), on the basis of a wealth of evidence from studies of short-term retention. Underwood (1948a) found, however, that the amount of PI and RI became equal after a longer retention interval (48 hours). In addition, he has since suggested that, except for conditions in which RI is experimentally produced, PI may account for the greater proportion of all forgetting (Underwood, 1957). The question then arises as to how the interference of prior learning on recall is affected when interpolated learning is also introduced. Forgetting virtually always occurs in the presence of some prior and interpolated learning.Three recent studies (Hall & Ugelow, 1959;Seidel, 1959; Tulving & Thornton, 1959) have introduced various amounts of both prior learning (PL) and interpolated learning (IL) in the same conditions. It is doubtful that results either of Hall and Ugelow or of Tulving and Thornton are relevant to combined proactive and retroactive effects. Neither study employed procedures known to be conducive to reliable demonstrations of PI, and little (if any) PI resulted in either.Seidel used serial learning (nonsense syllables), PL 24 hours prior to the critical learning (CL), a 24-hour retention interval, and IL immediately prior to recall. He found what appeared to be a simple summation of the two inhibiting effects.The purpose of the present studies was to test for an interaction of PL and IL, using paired associates, a short retention interval (30 minutes), and PL, CL, and IL in one continuous session. Seidel's introduction of IL immediately before recall may have resulted in quite different effects than would appear with the more conventional proximity of IL and CL. EXPERIMENT I Subjects and MaterialsTwenty-four paid Ss, twenty-one male and three female university students, learned lists of ten paired-associate two-syllable adjectives. These were presented on a Gerbrand memory drum with a 3-sec. anticipation period and 9-sec. interval

show abstract

Section: Recall and Relearningsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Three recent studies (Hall & Ugelow, 1959;Seidel, 1959; Tulving & Thornton, 1959) have introduced various amounts of both prior learning (PL) and interpolated learning (IL) in the same conditions. It is doubtful that results either of Hall and Ugelow or of Tulving and Thornton are relevant to combined proactive and retroactive effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The combined effect of retroaction and proaction.

Rj¹,

Gn²

1962

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in experiment 1 it remains unclear whether contextual similarity truly enhanced new learning, since a control condition with novel, non-overlapping episodes was not implemented on day 2. Likewise, such a control condition is needed to determine whether new memory is impaired in the different context condition, which would be in line with classic list learning studies where retroactive and proactive interference typically go hand in hand (Seidel, 1959).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Episodic memory enhancement versus impairment is determined by contextual similarity across events

Cox¹,

Dobbelaar²,

Meeter³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over a century, stability of environmental context across related episodes has been considered a source of memory interference. However, contemporary memory integration theory generates a diametrically opposite prediction. Here, we aimed to resolve this discrepancy by manipulating local context similarity across temporally disparate but related episodes, and testing the direction and underlying mechanisms of memory change. A series of experiments show that contextual stability produces memory integration and marked reciprocal strengthening, whereas variable context results in one memory to dominate at a related memory’s expense. Intriguingly, however, retrieval patterns reversed when the original encoding contexts were reintroduced during memory recall. These observations (i) identify environmental context during new learning and subsequent recall as opposing determinants in the volatility of memory, (ii) present a challenge to several classic and modern theories on episodic memory change, and (iii) reconcile paradoxical predictions of memory interference and integration.

show abstract

“…This large differential in retention could only be attributed to the strong PI effects of the practice material. Further experimental support was given by Seidel (1959), measuring concurrent PI and RI.…”

Section: Degree Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%