EXPERIMENT NO.

General Problem: On memory and forgetting.

Specific Problem: Experimentally determine the effect of retroactive inhibition on the capacity of
memorization of the subject through visual presentation of stimuli.

Basic Concept:

Memory refers to the mental faculty that is used to acquire, store, retain and later retrieve information. Memory
is both an influence on and result of perception, attention and learning. Cognitive psychologist, Margaret W.
Matlin defined memory as "the process retaining information over time." According to Ryburn (1956),
memory is "the power that we have to store our experiences and to bring them into the field of consciousness,
some time after the experiences have occurred." However, memory is not just the revival of past experiences
because it is a complex process which involves several factors like learning, retention, recall and recognition. It
comprises systems that can hold information for periods of time, ranging from fractions of a second to a
lifetime, and systems that have a very limited storage capacity to those with vast storage capacity.

Memory involves three interrelated processes: encoding, storage, and retrieval.

•Encoding is the process where the information that comes into our memory system (from sensory input) is
changed into a form that the system can cope with, so that it can be stored.
•Storage is concerned with the nature of memory stores, i.e., where the information is stored, how long the
memory lasts for (duration), how much can be stored at any time (capacity) and what kind of information is
held.
•Retrieval (or recall, or recognition) is the calling back of stored information in response to some cue for use in
a process or activity.
In experiments, it is generally preferred to break up the process into the learning period, the retaining period and
the testing period. In the learning period, registration and learning takes place by sensory input and
transforming it into a neural coded form. In the retaining period, the coded information is actually put into
memory. Finally, in the testing period, the reproduction of the stored and coded information takes place by
recall and recognition. In the testing period, the amount of information recalled is determined by the amount of
information learnt(encoded), retained(stored) and successfully retrieved. Learning and its facets, thus, affect the
retention and retrieval - the capacity of memorization.

When it comes to measuring the amount of information retained, a problem arises because meaningful words
have many pre-established associations for the human adults. To counter this problem Hermann Ebbinghaus
(1885) simplified and standardized his experiments by the invention of nonsense syllables, which are
meaningless words that do not have associations with other information in the memory.

Problems can occur at any stage of the process, leading to anything from forgetfulness to amnesia. Forgetting
refers to the loss of information that was previously encoded and stored in memory. Munn (1967) defined
forgetting as "the loss, permanent or temporary, of the ability to recall or recognise something learned earlier."
According to Drever (1952), "Forgetting means failure at any time to recall an experience, when attempting to
do so, or to perform action previously learned." There are many factors that can contribute to forgetting. One of
today's best-known memory researchers, Elizabeth Loftus, has identified four major reasons why people forget:
retrieval failure, interference, failure to store, and motivated forgetting. Numerous processes and theories have
been proposed throughout the long history of study to account for forgetting, including the trace decay theory,
the interference theory and the repression theory.

According to the interference theory, forgetting takes place because all memories interfere with the ability to
recall other memories. Forgetting occurs because of interference from other memories (Baddeley, 1999). The
more similar to or more events are to one another, the more likely interference will occur. Under this theory
transience, which refers to the general deterioration of a specific memory over time, is said to take place. Memory
can be disrupted by what we have previously learnt, or by what we are learning now (or will learn in future).
There are two basic types of interference that can occur - retroactive inhibition and proactive inhibition.

Retroactive (retro means backward) inhibition occurs when newly acquired information interferes with our old
memories i.e. the new information makes it difficult to recall the old information. For example, learning a new
way of making a paper airplane, and then, being unable to recall the way we used to make the paper plane earlier.
In experimental studies, retroactive inhibition is defined as the adverse effect, upon the retention of a material of
an interpolated activity between learning and recall. Whenever the learning of a task-B facilitates learning or
retention of another task-A, a positive transfer occurs, whereas, whenever the learning of task-B interferes with
the learning and retention of task-A, a negative transfer occurs. (Here, list-B is a task learnt after list-A.)
Retroactive inhibition is an example of negative transfer because the learning of one task interferes with the
retention of another. The interpolated activity(B) interferes with the results or 'traces' of the previous activity(A)
and not the activity itself.

The first systematic investigation of retroactive inhibition was carried out by Müller and Pilzecker (1900),
who are credited for naming the phenomenon. They demonstrated poorer retention of a series of nonsense
syllables after interpolation of a second series than after a period of rest. To account for these findings, they
advanced what came to be known as perseveration theory of retroactive inhibition. The basic assumption of this
theory is that after the end of practice (learning) of a given task, there is a period of continuing neural activity
during which the memory pattern that represents the product of learning is consolidated. The performance of
any strenuous task during the period of perseveration interferes with the process of consolidation.

The important conclusion one may gain from retroactive inhibition is that "forgetting is not simply a failure or
weakness of the memory system but rather an integral part of our stored knowledge repertoire." (Bjork, 1992)

The aim of this study is to experimentally determine the effect of retroactive inhibition on the capacity of
memorization of the subject through visual presentation of stimuli.

Preliminaries:

Name of the subject: Medini Dumka

Age of the subject: 18
Sex of the subject: Female
Education of the subject: UG-1
Language known to subject: English, Hindi
Condition of the subject: Fresh and cooperative
Date of the experiment: 10th March, 2021
Time of the experiment: 3:40-4:50

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)

Retroactive 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 minutes

Control Condition

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

✓Time taken will be noted down
✓Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
 ✓Rest will be provided (duration of rest will be half the time to learn List A)
✓Recall of List A will be taken

Rest for 10 minutes

Experimental Condition

✓List B will be presented visually till 100% criterion of mastery

✓Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
✓List C will be presented visually for the time provided for rest in the control condition
✓Recall of List B will be taken

c.Plan of the Experiment – Specific Framework:

Stimulus Response Response Measure

Visual Stimuli:
Lists of nonsense syllables •Percentage of recall in each trial

Set 1: •Accuracy of reproduction in

•List A is presented for a number •The subject memorizes the list PCT
of trials until 100% learning and reproduces it mechanically
occurs. The time taken is recorded. (writes it down) in correct order. •Accuracy of reproduction of List
•A rest pause for some time is •After 100% learning the subject A and B in recall after rest pause
given which is half the time taken recalls and reproduces the list for and after presentation of List C,
to learn List A. PCT. respectively.
•The subject will be engaged in •The subject recalls and
non-interfering task (doodling or reproduces List A.
drawing lines).
•The subject is then asked to recall
List A.

Set 2:
 •List B is presented for a number •The subject memorizes the list
of trials until 100% learning and reproduces it mechanically
occurs. The time taken is recorded. (writes it down) in correct order.
•After 100% learning, the subject
recalls and reproduces the list for a
PCT.

•List C is presented for as long as •The subject memorizes and

the rest pause is given after reproduces the list mechanically
presentation of List A. (writes it down), in correct order,
for a stipulated period of time.
•The subject is asked to recall List •The subject recalls and
B. reproduces List B.

d.Controlling Techniques of Extraneous Variables:

Extraneous Variables Controlling Techniques

Subject-relevant variable:
Age, sex, educational level, individual differences Kept constant (since N=1)
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 syllable and gap Kept constant at 2 seconds
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 different syllables No syllable is repeated in a list or in a 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
the 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 control 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. You will then be
provided a rest and you are supposed to doodle or draw lines on a piece of paper during the rest period. After the
rest period, you will have to recall the list again, from your memory, in correct order. Please report to me
immediately if you have any difficulty.”

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 for
stipulated time duration. After that, you will have to recall the earlier list in correct order from your memory
without seeing the list again. Please report to 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 after PCT of List
A was taken.
j. Time taken to learn List A should be carefully noted down.
k. The subject will learn the List C for specific period of time and the time will be identical to the time of
rest provided after learning List A.

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 not be used in the same 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. A
PCT was taken immediately. The subject was then provided a rest period for a duration of half the time taken to
memorize List A. During this rest period, the subject was asked to engage in some non-interfering task (example,
doodling or drawing lines) and then, the subject was asked to recall List A. A rest pause of 10 minutes was then
provided.

Then, List B was presented till 100% learning occurred. Immediately, a PCT was taken. Immediately after that
List C was presented as long as the rest pause was allowed after presentation of List A. Subject was then asked to
recall List B.

Finally, the percentage of correct reproduction and recall, and the percentage of retroactive inhibition were
calculated. The findings were represented graphically and interpreted.

Report of the Subject:

In this experiment, I was asked to memorize lists of meaningless words. At first, I found it very difficult to
memorise those meaningless words. I followed all the instructions and tried to memorise the lists. There were
two phases and in the second phase, I had to memorize two lists consecutively and then recall the previous list.
After learning another list, it was difficult for me to recall the previous list.

Data and Calculations:

Table 1 showing determination of memory span of the subject:

Nonsense Syllables Subject's Reproduction

BIF BIF ✔️
KED KED ✔️
GAK GAC ❌
DIR DIR ✔️
TUJ KUJ ❌
 PAF TAF ❌
HEB

DUT

SOP

KUS KUS ✔️
Number of correct reproduction = 4
Memory span of the subject = 4
Length of the list = (4×3) = 12

Table 2 showing data of control condition (List A) :

Nonsense Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 PCT

Syllables

❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
CAS KAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS

✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
BUR BUR BUR BUR BUR BUR BUR BUR BUR

❌ ❌ ✔️ ✔️ ❌ ❌ ✔️ ✔️
DOF DOB DOP DOF DOF DOB DOB DOF DOF

✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
HAN HAN HAN HAN HAN HAN HAN HAN HAN

✔️ ❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ❌ ✔️ ✔️
FUB FUB FUR FUB FUB FUB FOB FUB FUB

❌ ❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
CIN SIR SIN CIN CIN CIN CIN CIN CIN

❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
SAF CAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF

❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
BOC BUC BOC BOC BOC BOC

✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
PUM PUM PUM PUM PUM PUM
 ❌ ❌ ❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
CAD CAF PUM DAF CAD CAD CAD CAD

✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
HEB HEB HEB HEB PUM HEB HEB HEB

✔️ ❌ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️
RIC RIC RIB RIC RIC RIC RIC RIC

Number of
Correct 3 5 8 10 10 10 12 12
Reproduct
ion

Percentage
of Correct 25% 41.7% 66.7% 83.3% 83.3% 83.3% 100% 100%
Reproduct
ion

Table 3 showing the recall of List A (after the retention interval, when the subject was involved performing a
non-interfering task):

Nonsense Syllables Subject's Reproduction

CAS CAS ✔️
BUR BUR ✔️
DOF DOF ✔️
HAN HAN ✔️
FUB FOB ❌
CIN CIN ✔️
SAF SAF ✔️
BOC BOC ✔️
PUM PUM ✔️
CAD CAD ✔️
HEB HEB ✔️
 RIC RIC ✔️
Number of Correct Reproduction 11

Percentage of Correct Reproduction 91.7%

Table 4 showing data of experimental condition (List B):

Nonsense Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 PCT

Syllables

GEB GEB✔️ GEB✔️ GEB✔️ GEB ✔️ GEB ✔️

JOV JOV ✔️ JOV ✔️ JOV ✔️ JOV ✔️ JOV ✔️

TAR TAR ✔️ TAR ✔️ TAR ✔️ TAR ✔️ TAR ✔️

GUP GUP ✔️ GUP ✔️ GUP ✔️ GUP ✔️ GUP ✔️

NOJ NOJ ✔️ NOJ ✔️ NOJ ✔️ NOJ ✔️ NOJ ✔️

MUV MOV ❌ MUV ✔️ MUV ✔️ MUV ✔️ MOK ❌

FAD FAB ❌ FAD ✔️ FAD ✔️ FAD ✔️ FAD ✔️

HOS HOS ✔️ HOS ✔️ HOS ✔️ HOS ✔️ HOS ✔️

CAL CAD ❌ CAD ❌ KAL ❌ CAL ✔️ CAL ✔️

BOJ BOJ ✔️ BOJ ✔️ BOJ ✔️

KAS KAS ✔️ KAS ✔️ KAS ✔️

MOC MOK ❌ MOC ✔️ MOC ✔️ MOC ✔️ MOC ✔️

Number of
Correct 6 9 11 12 11
Reproduction

Percentage of
Correct 50% 75% 91.67% 100% 91.67%
Reproduction

Table 5 showing data of List C (which is the interfering task):

 Nonsense Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
Syllables

JUD JUD✔️ JUD ✔️ JUD ✔️ JUD ✔️

MIK FOD ❌ BAF ❌ MIK ✔️ MIK ✔️
BAF BAF ✔️ FOD ❌ BAF ✔️ BAF ✔️
FOD MIK ❌ VEM ❌ FOD ✔️ FOD ✔️
VEM VEM ✔️ LOF ❌ VEM ✔️ VEM ✔️
LOF LOF ✔️ DIT ❌ LOF ✔️ LOF ✔️
RUJ FBI ❌ RUJ ✔️
DIT DIT ✔️

HUV

SIB SIB✔️ SIB ✔️

COJ COZ ❌

VUR VUR ✔️ VUR ✔️

Table 6 showing the recall of List B (after the retention interval, when List C was being learned):

Nonsense Syllables Subject's Reproduction

GEB CAB ❌
JOV

TAR

GUP GUP ✔️
NOJ NOJ ✔️
MUV MUV ✔️
FAD FAD ✔️
HOS HOS ✔️
 CAL CAL ✔️
BOJ SOJ ❌
KAS KAS ✔️
MOC BUR ❌
Number of Correct Reproduction 7

Percentage of Correct Reproduction 58.3%

Calculation:

Percentage of Retroactive Inhibition

= {(C-E)/C}×100

[where, C= Number of correct recall in control condition and E= Number of correct recall in experimental
condition]

Percentage of Retroactive Inhibition

= {(11-7)/11}×100
=(4/11)×100
=36.36%

Table 7 showing comparison between control and experimental condition and the % of retroactive inhibition

Forgetting
Condition Percentage of Retroactive
Correct Recall Due to time gap Due to time gap Inhibition
(Delayed Recall) and retroaction

Control 91.7% 8.3% - -

Condition

Experimental 58.3% - 41.7% 36.36%

Condition

Graph:
 Interpretation:

In this experiment, an attempt was made to determine the effect of retroactive inhibition on the memorization
capacity of the subject.

From the comparative chart, it is observed that in the control condition, the percentage of correct recall (delayed
recall after the rest in retention interval) is 91.7% , and forgetting (due to time gap) is 8.3% . In the experimental
condition, the percentage of correct recall (delayed recall after learning another list of nonsense syllables in the
retention interval) is 58.3% , and forgetting (due to time gap and retroaction) is 41.7% . From the appropriate
calculations, the computed percentage of retroactive inhibition is found to be 36.36% .

Comparing the two percentages of correct recall, it may be said that in this experiment, retroactive inhibition
was prevalent because this percentage of correct recall decreased in the experimental condition, where the subject
had to learn another list of nonsense syllables during the retention interval, which acts as an interfering task, as
compared to the control condition, where the subject was involved in a non-interfering task during the retention
interval. This suggests that in the experimental condition, learning the list C interferes with the subject's ability
to recall list B, while in the control condition, where the subject performs a non-interfering task like doodling
(which ensures that the subject's mind does not wander, thus decreasing the chances of forgetting due to any
other cognitive processes like thinking, etc.), the percentage of correct recall is greater.

Retroactive inhibition is the negative effect of an activity, following memorization, on the retention of the
material memorized. If memorization is followed by some other interfering cognitive activity, recall of the
material may not be as complete as when the memorization is followed by rest. (A.A.Smirnov) This
experimental finding helps to explain the results of the present experiment as well.

The 'soaking in' or consolidation theory as proposed by Müller and Pilzecker (1900) indicates that a few
minutes of relaxation will allow the associations to consolidate, whereas strenuous mental activity will check the
perseveration activity and put a stop to consolidation. This will help to explain the present observations of this
study, as here, retention interval, with a non-interfering filler task only, has come out to yield better recall than
after a retention interval, where the subject had to learn another list, and this decrease in the amount of correct
recall after a retention interval where an interfering task is employed indicates the presence of retroactive
inhibition.

Conclusion:

It may thus be concluded that for the present subject, in the present experiment, retroactive inhibition was
present when the subject had to learn two lists of nonsense syllables consecutively i.e. when the subject was asked
to learn another list during the retention interval. This shows that here, for the present subject, learning another
material interferes or inhibits the retention of the previously learnt material. Therefore, it can be said that
retroactive inhibition had a detrimental effect on the capacity of memorization of the subject as there was a
decrease in the percentage of correct recall.