SISTER NIVEDITA UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

Lab Report for the Practical on

PROACTIVE INHIBITION

Submitted By

Name of the student: Souradwip Mondal

Enrollment no: 2511230001095

Registration no: 250010958773

Section : A

Programme: [Link]. In psychology

Semester: I

Submitted To

Ms. Shawni Dutta,

Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, Sister Nivedita University

1|
Page
 INDEX

SL. SPECIFIC PAGE DATE OF TEACHER’S

NO. PROBLEM NO. SUBMISSION SIGNATURE

1.

To determine the
effect of proactive
inhibition on the 3-19 13/10/2025
capacity of
memorization of the
subject

General Problem:
2|
Page
On memory

Specific problem:
To determine the effect of proactive inhibition on the capacity of memorization of the subject.

Basic concept:
Memory is our cognitive system for storing and retrieving information. It is an active process, a
system, that receives, encodes, modifies and retrieves information. It is the process, that receives
information from senses organizes, and alters it as it stores it away and then retrieve the information
from storage (Baddley,1996, 2003). The memorization process involves:

 Receiving information from the senses.

 Coding that information into useable form.
 Storing the information in an organized way.
 Retrieving the information when necessary.
 Recognizing and identifying the previously learned information correctly.

A number of theories has been proposed to explain the native of memory. One of the theories say
that memory is consists of receiving input and transforming it into a code, that can be stored; and in
gaining access to it when required. It is quite a complex process which involves factors like
learning, retention, recall and recognition, however it is generally preferred to break up the
experiment into the learning period, the retaining period and the testing period. On the learning
period, registration and the learning takes place by sensory input and transferring it into form. In the
retaining period, the coded information is actually put into memory and finally in the testing period,
the reproduction of the stored and the coded information takes place by recall and recognition.

Memory span may be defined as a number of units which is grasped and reproduced correctly after
a single presentation. The term “immediate memory span” was introduced by Jacob (1887). On the
other hand, memorization capacity is a cognitive process which included an individuals’ capacity to
learn, store, retain, recall and reproduce an information to which he or she has been previously
manifested. Herman Ebbinghaus simplified, and standardized his experiments on memory by the
invention of nonsense syllables, since meaningful words have pre-existing associations for human
adults, nonsense syllables were invented with the Purpose of eliminating meaning in order to study
“pure” learning and retention.

Memory and learning are affected by various factors such as distributed and repeated learning,
effect of length of lesson upon retention, retention of different kinds of materials and vividness.
Learning according to Melvin. H. Marx “is a relatively enduring change in behavior which is a
function of prior behavior, usually called practice.” Memorizing capacity is a subject relevant
variable. It is the maximum potential of the subject to retain learnt material. This capacity of
memorization of the subject is fairly elastic. This capacity varies from person to person and can be
influenced by factors such as:

 Attention: Ability to focus on relevant information.

3|
Page
 Cognitive load: Amount of mental effort required to process information.
 Chunking: Organizing information into meaningful groups or chunks.

Forgetting refers to the inability to recall or remember previously learned information, experiences,
or skills. It's a natural process that can be influenced by various psychological and neurological
factors, and understanding its causes can help develop strategies to improve memory and retention.

 Passage of time: Memories can fade over time if not reinforced.

 Interference: New information can interfere with existing memories.
 Lack of practice: Skills or knowledge not used or practiced can be forgotten.
 Brain changes: Changes in brain function or structure can affect memory.

Proactive inhibition is defined as the decrement in retention of a task as a consequence of other

learning coming prior to the learning of the task on which the retention test is made. In most cases,
it has been found that some forgetting will occur with the passage of time, without the formal
learning of other material. Consequently, in proactive inhibition, part of decrement in retention, is
allotted to the other learning under the control of the experimenter and part to “natural “forgetting
which could take place without the formal learning of the other task.

The major theoretical, contentious of proactive inhibition are as follows:

The first attack on proactive inhibition was made by William James (1900). Following him, his later
workers postulated, improvement in one function as a result of previous exercise on other depends
upon the identity of elements or components (to be found in both material and method) between the
activities being measured (Thorndike and Woodworth,1924) upon the carryover of attitudes or
methods or techniques of attack, which are generalized.

The classic theories which can explain proactive inhibition are:

 Perseveration Theory (Muller and Pilzecker) stating that a task preceded by strenuous mental
activity check preservative activity and put a stop to consolidation of second task. Perseveration
refers to the persistent repetition of a particular response, such as a word or action, despite the
absence or cessation of the original stimulus. According to the perseveration theory, proactive
inhibition occurs because the previously learned information remains active in memory and
continues to influence new learning, even after the original stimulus has been removed.
 Two factor theory stating that two incompatible response tendencies acquired during successive
tasks, compete each other during the retention stage and recall. The Two-Factor Theory of
proactive inhibition proposes that two factors contribute to forgetting: habituation (decreased
response to familiar stimuli) and competition (interference from previously learned
information). As old information becomes habitual, it competes with new information, making
recall more difficult.
 Interference theory, stating that retention of two consecutive learning tasks is interfered by each
other (McGeoch, 1942). The Interference Theory of proactive inhibition suggests that forgetting
occurs due to interference from previously learned information. This theory proposes that
proactive inhibition is a result of the interference between old and new memories, where prior
learning disrupts the formation and retrieval of new memories. The similarity between old and
new information increases the likelihood of interference, making it harder to recall new
4|
Page
 information. Interference can be proactive (old interfering with new) or retroactive (new
interfering with old).
 According to Gestaltens, any learning occurs in a continuous sequence and is influenced by
memories of previous experiences. Gestalt principles like proximity, similarity, and closure can
influence perception and memory. In the context of proactive inhibition, Gestalt theory suggest
that previously learned patterns or structures (gestalts) can interfere with new learning by
dominating perception and memory. For example, if a previously learned task has a similar
structure to a new task, the old pattern may be reactivated, making it harder to learn the new
task. This interference can lead to proactive inhibition, where prior learning hinders new
learning. Context and pattern recognition play a role.
 According to the situated cognition theory, broad transfer of knowledge or skills is virtually
impossible or as Carl Bariefer (1995) has put it, for transfer across situations, the situation needs
to be transferred itself. According to situated cognition, knowledge is tied to the context in
which it is learned. When new information is learned in a different context, proactive inhibition
may occur if the old context interferes with the new learning. The theory suggests that changing
the context or environment can reduce interference, facilitating new learning. This perspective
emphasizes the importance of context in shaping cognitive processes and potentially mitigating
proactive inhibition. Context influences learning and recall.
 The Identical Production Theory (1983) states that transfer is an outcome of matches or
mismatches that occur between declarative and procedural knowledge. It suggests that proactive
inhibition occurs when previously learned productions or rules overlap with new ones. When
the same or similar rules are applied to new situations, interference can arise, leading to
proactive inhibition. This theory, rooted in cognitive architecture, implies that the overlap
between existing and new productions can cause competition, making it harder to retrieve or
apply new information.

Therefore, based on these ideas, the aim of the present experiment is to determine the effect of
proactive inhibition on the capacity of memorization of the subject.

Preliminaries:
• Name of the subject: H.C.
• Age of the subject: 19
• Sex of the subject: Male
• Educational qualification of the subject: Undergraduate(UG, Sem-1)
• Language known to the subject: English, Hindi and Bengali
• Condition of the subject: normal, attentive and cooperative
• Environmental conditions: Control situation of lab
• Date of the experiment: 25/08/2025
• Time of the experiment: 2.00 pm - 3.00 pm

Materials Required:

5|
Page
 • Lists of nonsense syllables
• Strips of paper
• Stop-watch
• Screen
• Paper window
• Pen, pencil, eraser, scale

Design of the Experiment:

• Specific Problem: To determine the effect of proactive inhibition on the capacity of
memorization of the subject.
• Independent Variable: Proactive Inhibition.
• Dependent Variable: Capacity of Memorization.
• Stimulus: List of non-sense syllable.
• Response: Subject’s reproduction of non-sense syllable.
• Response Measure: A) Percentage of correct response. B) Accuracy.

Plan of the Experiment - General Framework:

 Non-Interfering Filler Task for 2 minutes (write numbers sequentially)

 Immediate Memory Span:

 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 10 mins

 Non-Interfering Filler Task for 2 minutes (write numbers sequentially)

 Control Condition:
 Non-Interfering Filler Task for 5 minutes (draw lines)
 Visual presentation of List A till 100% criteria of mastery
 Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
 Time taken by the subject (T1) to reach 100% mastery will be recorded
 Rest for half the duration of T1, during which Non-Interfering Filler Task (draw lines) to
be given
 Recall of List A

 Rest for 10 mins

 Non-Interfering Filler Task for 2 minutes (write numbers sequentially)

 Experimental Condition:
 Visual presentation of List B for 5 minutes

6|
Page
  Visual presentation of List C till 100% criteria of mastery
 Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
 Rest for half the duration of T1, during which Non-Interfering Filler Task (draw
lines) to be given
 Recall of List C

Controlling Techniques of Extraneous Variables:

Extraneous Variable 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 syllable  Kept constant at 2 seconds
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

Steps of the Experiment:

Step 1: Rapport should be established with the subject.

Step 2: The subject should be asked to write numbers sequentially for 2 minutes.

Step 3: Immediate memory span should be found out by presenting a list of 10 nonsense
syllable, only once. Each syllable should be presented for 2 seconds and inter syllable interval
should be 2 Seconds.

Step 4: Rest of 10 minutes should be given.

Step 5: The subject should be asked to write numbers sequentially for 2 minutes.

Step 6: Control Condition: The subject should be asked to draw lines for 5 minutes (non-
interfering Filler task). Then List A should be presented and proceeded up to 100% criterion of

7|
Page
learning. Post Criterion trial (PCT) should be taken. The time taken for learning and
memorizing list A should be noted.

The subject should then be given rest for sufficiently less amount of the time taken to learn and
memorize list A (half the duration of total time taken), during which the subject should be asked to
draw lines (non-interfering filler task).

The subject should be asked to recall list A, without presenting it again.

Step 7: Rest of 10 minutes should be given.

Step 8: The subject should be asked to write numbers sequentially for 2 minutes.

Step 9: Experimental Condition: List B should be presented and the subject should be made to
learn it for 5 minutes. Then List C should be presented and proceeded up to 100% criterion of
learning. Post Criterion trial (PCT) should be taken.

The subject should then be given rest for sufficiently less amount of the time taken to learn and
memorize list A (half the duration of total time taken), during the subject should be asked to
draw lines (non-interfering filler task).

The subject should be asked to recall list C, without presenting it again.

Procedure:
Rapport was established with the subject and required materials were made ready. Proper
Instructions were given to the subject. Then the subject was asked to write numbers sequentially
for 2 minutes. Memory span was found out by showing a list of 10 non-sense syllables. Length of
the following lists are determined from the memory span and the lists are prepared.

The subject was then asked to rest for 10 minutes. Then the subject again was asked to write
numbers sequentially for 2 minutes. After that the subject was asked to draw lines for 5 minutes.
Then List A was presented to the subject till 100% mastery of the task. Post criterion trial was
taken. Then the subject was asked to rest for half of the time required to learn List A, during which
the subject was asked to draw lines. After that the subject was asked to recall List A. Number and
percentage of correct response in each trial, in PCT and in final recall was calculated.

A break of 10 minutes was given. Then the subject again was asked to write numbers sequentially
for 2 minutes. After that List B was presented for 5 minutes. Then List C was presented to the
subject till 100% mastery of the task. Post criterion trial was taken. Then the subject was asked to
rest for half of the time required to learn List C, during which the subject was asked to draw lines.
After that the Subject was asked to recall List C. Number and percentage of correct response in
each trial, in PCT and in final recall was calculated.

After collection of data, the percentage of correct responses and proactive inhibition were
calculated. A comparative chart was drawn and the data was represented graphically.

Rules for Preparing Nonsense Syllables:

8|
Page
 Each syllable is made by three letters with one vowel in between two consonants (CVC
Method).
 Syllables should be written in capital letters.
 Syllables should be meaningless so that the subject is unable to make any association.
 The initial consonant of a syllable is not identical with the final consonant of the same Syllable
of the list.
 No two consecutive syllables in the list should have the same initial consonant or the same
Vowel.
 The last consonant of any syllable should not be the same as the first consonant of the next
syllable.
 The order of consonant and vowel should be avoided
 The vowels are placed at random.
 W, X, Y, Z, and Q should be avoided from the list.
 Either C/K or G/J should not be used in the same syllable.
 H should not be used at the end of any syllable.
 There should not be any repetition and rhythmic presentation in the list.

Precautions:
 The non-sense syllables were prepared according to the rules.
 Subject was not shown the list before the actual presentation.
 The length of the list was considered strictly on the basis of the memory span.
 The paper window should be made accurately so that the subject can see each syllable
Distinctively.
 Presentation of syllable will be one at a time.
 While preparing the list an adequate gap between two syllables needs to be maintained.
 An equal time interval of 2 seconds between two nonsense syllables should
 be maintained While presenting the list.
 Each syllable is exposed for 2 seconds to the subject
 The experiment situation was made free of distraction as far as possible.
 Extraneous variable like noise, temperature, variations of light was controlled.
 Report of the subject was taken immediately after the subject’s response.

Instructions:

9|
Page
General instruction:
 Please sit comfortably and be very attentive. I will be conducting an experiment on you where
you have to memorize some list of syllables and reproduce it when asked. Please try to follow
the instructions carefully. During the experiment if you have any problem, do not hesitate to tell
me.

Instructions for memory span:

 Please write number sequentially till I ask you to stop.
 Now I will present you a list of syllables. You will see 1 syllable at a time through a paper
window and will have to learn them. Then the list will be withdrawn and you will have to write
down as many syllables as you can recall in the correct order.
 Now you are allowed to take some rest.

Instructions for control conditions:

 Now please write number sequentially till I ask you to stop.
 Now please draw lines till I ask you to stop.
 Now I will present a list of syllables. Read each syllable carefully. The list will be presented
many times and you will reproduce as much as you can in the correct order. The presentation
will stop when you can reproduce the list correctly. Then you have to reproduce the list once
again.
 Again, please draw lines till I ask you to stop.
 Now the list will not be shown to you but you will have to recall it from memory.
 Again, now you are allowed to take some rest.

Instructions for experimental conditions:

 Now please write number sequentially till I ask you to stop.
 Now I will present you with a similar list of syllables and in the same way you will have to
learn them and reproduce in the correct order.
 Now this will be followed by yet another list and you will have to learn it. The list will be
presented many times and you will reproduce as much as you can in the correct order. The
presentation will stop when you can reproduce the list correctly. Then you have to reproduce
the list once again.
 Again, please draw lines till I ask you to stop.
 Now you will have to recall the list shown to you most recently.

Post experiment instructions:

10
|P a g e
 Now the experiment is over. Please write a report on your experience throughout the
experiment.

Data and Calculation:

Table 1: The determination of the memory span of the subject.

List of Nonsense Syllables Subject's Reproduction

MIP MIP

HOV HOV

TEB JED

KIF MIR

MER TOB

JAD

FIM

RAL

DOF

LEB

Number of correct reproductions 2

Memory span of the subject 2

Length of the list 2x3 = 6

Table 2: The data for the Control Condition

11
|P a g e
 List of Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 PCT Recall
Nonsense
Syllables

PAJ PAJ PAJ PAJ PAJ

HIK HIK HIK HIK HIK

FUB BUV FUB FUB FUB

MEV MEV MEV MEV MEV

Retention interval
KUN KUN KUN KUN KUN

RAV JUD RAV RAV RAV

No. of 4 6 6 6
correct
response

Percentage 66.66% 100% 100% 100%

of correct
response

12
|P a g e
 Table 3: The data for the Experimental Condition

List of Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 PCT Recall
Nonsense
Syllables

TAV TAV TAV TAV

GOK GOK GOK GOK

PEB PEB PEB PEB

Retention interval
MIJ MIJ MIJ MIJ

TAS TAS TAS TAS

DUP DUP DUP DUP

No. of 6 6 6
correct
response

Percentage 100% 100% 100%

of correct
response

13
|P a g e
Calculation of proactive inhibition:
Formula: {(C - E) ÷ C} ×100

[where, C = number of correct recalls in the control condition (List A) and E = number of correct
recalls in the experimental condition (List C)]

Hence, here the calculated percentage of proactive inhibition is:

= [(6-6) / 6] x 100

= (0 / 6) x 100

= 0%

Report on subjective experience: “I felt excited and curious in the practical. It was
easy to perform and quite understandable.” - HC

Comparative chart:

Forgetting
Percentage of Percentage of
correct recall
Condition Due to Time Proactive
Due to Time Inhibition
(Delayed Recall) Gap and
Gap
Proaction

Control 100% 0%
condition
0%
Experimental 100% 0%
condition

14
|P a g e
Graphical representation of data:

Interpretation: This experiment was made to determine the effect of proactive inhibition on
the memorization capacity of the subject. From the comparative chart, it is observed that in the
controlled condition, the percentage of correct recall (delayed recall before which the subject was
engaged in a non-interfering filler task) is 100% and forgetting (due to time gap) is 0%.

In the experimental condition, the percentage of correct recall (delayed recall when the subject has
previously learned the List B which acts as an interfering task before learning the List C) is 100%
and forgetting (due to time gap and proaction) is 0%.

From the appropriate calculations, the computed percentage of proactive inhibition is found to be
0%.

Comparing, the two percentages of correct recall, it may be said that in this experiment, there is no
amount of proactive inhibition because the percentage of correct recall was higher or equal in the
experimental condition where the subject has previously learned a list of nonsense syllables (LIST
B) which acts as an interfering task as compared to the controlled condition where the subject was
involved in a non-interfering filler task during the retention interval. This suggests that in the
experimental condition, learning the LIST B did not interfere with the subject’s ability to recall
LIST C while in the controlled condition where the subject performs a non-interfering filler task,
the percentage of correct recall of LIST A is lower or equal.

15
|P a g e
Conclusion: Thus, from the above experiment, we determine the effect of proactive inhibition
on the memorization capacity of the subject and found that there is no effect of proactive inhibition
in the present case.

16
|P a g e