PRACTICUM NOTEBOOK — BPCC-101
RETROACTIVE INHIBITION
An Experiment on the Effect of Interpolated Learning on Retention
Note: This file follows the format prescribed in the IGNOU BPCC-101 Practicum Guidelines (Aim, Hypothesis,
Introduction, Description, Material Required, Participant's Profile, Procedure and Administration, Scoring and
Interpretation, Discussion, Conclusion, References). Sections that were incomplete in the original notebook —
the Introspective Report, the full Description of the Experiment, Participant's occupation, and an expanded
literature-based Discussion — have been added below.
1. Aim / Objective
To study the effect of interpolated activity (learning a second list of material) upon the recall of
previously learned material, and thereby to demonstrate the phenomenon of retroactive inhibition in
verbal learning.
2. Hypothesis
Later learning will affect the recall of previous learning. Specifically, a subject who learns a second list
(List B) after learning a first list (List A) will show poorer recall of List A than a subject who learns List A
alone, because the intervening (interpolated) learning will retroactively interfere with retention of the
original material.
3. Variables
• Independent Variable: Interpolated activity after original learning (i.e., whether or not List B is
learnt after List A).
• Dependent Variable: Recall of the original learning (number of List A items correctly recalled).
4. Material Required
• List A and List B, each containing 10 CVC (consonant–vowel–consonant) nonsense trigrams,
matched for difficulty/associability.
• Memory drum (or a manually-timed card/slide presentation) to expose each item for a fixed
interval.
• Stopwatch.
• Response sheet, pen/pencil for recording recall and introspective report.
5. Introduction
Memory refers to the cognitive system through which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved. It
has been the focus of psychological research since the pioneering work of Hermann Ebbinghaus in the
late nineteenth century, who first studied the course of learning and forgetting using lists of nonsense
syllables. Later, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) proposed a stage model of memory, popularly known as
the Modal Model, describing memory as operating through three processes:
• Encoding — the process through which information is converted into a form that can be entered
into memory.
• Storage — the process through which information is retained in memory.
• Retrieval — the process through which stored information is located and brought back into use.
Fig. 1 — The three basic memory processes (Modal Model, Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968)
The Modal Model further suggests that human beings possess three distinct memory stores. Sensory
memory holds a brief representation of sensory input for a very short duration but with a large capacity.
With attention, information passes into short-term memory (STM) — also called working memory —
which holds a limited amount of information (about seven items) for roughly thirty seconds unless
rehearsed. Through elaborative rehearsal, information may be transferred into long-term memory
(LTM), which has a relatively permanent and seemingly unlimited storage capacity.
Fig. 2 — Flow of information from Sensory Memory to Long-term Memory
5.1 Long-term Memory: Episodic, Semantic and Procedural Memory
Long-term memory for factual information can further be divided into episodic memory, which holds
information tied to a specific time and place and allows a person to mentally travel back and recollect a
past experience, and semantic memory, which holds general, context-free knowledge about the world
that is not linked to when or where it was learnt. Memory for skills, on the other hand, is retained in
procedural memory (also called implicit memory), which stores information that cannot easily be put
into words, such as the sequence of movements needed for a skilled motor act.
5.2 Forgetting and Interference
Forgetting refers to the apparent loss or modification of information that has already been encoded and
stored in short-term or long-term memory. It is generally viewed as a gradual or spontaneous process
in which previously stored material becomes unavailable at the retrieval stage. One of the earliest and
most influential accounts of forgetting is the interference theory, which holds that forgetting occurs
mainly because items of information stored in memory interfere with one another rather than simply
fading away with time. Interference theory was substantially developed through the two-list learning
paradigm first used by Müller and Pilzecker at the turn of the twentieth century, and later refined
through the systematic experimental work of Benton Underwood and John McGeoch in the
mid-twentieth century, who showed that the amount of interference depends on factors such as the
similarity between the two lists and the degree of learning of each.
Interference is generally described as being of two kinds:
• Retroactive Inhibition (Retroactive Interference): interference with the retention of information
already present in memory, caused by new information subsequently entered into memory (i.e.,
new learning disrupts recall of old learning).
• Proactive Inhibition (Proactive Interference): interference with the learning or retrieval of
current information, caused by information that was previously entered into memory (i.e., old
learning disrupts recall of new learning).
Fig. 3 — Retroactive Inhibition vs. Proactive Inhibition
6. Description of the Experiment
The present experiment uses a classic two-group (control vs. experimental) design to demonstrate
retroactive inhibition, following the paradigm originally devised by Müller and Pilzecker and later
standardised by researchers such as Underwood. Nonsense (CVC) syllables are used as stimulus
material instead of meaningful words, since nonsense syllables minimise the influence of prior semantic
association and allow the effect of interpolated learning to be isolated more clearly.
In this design, the control subject learns and recalls only one list (List A). The experimental subject
first learns List A in the same way, then learns a second list (List B) of similar nonsense syllables, and
is finally asked to recall List A again. Since both subjects are equated in terms of the original learning of
List A, any relative drop in the experimental subject's recall of List A (compared to the control subject)
can be attributed to the interpolated learning of List B — that is, to retroactive inhibition.
7. Participant's Profile
7.1 Control Subject
Detail Particulars
Name Kshitij
Age 17 years
Gender Male
Educational Qualification Class 12th
Occupation Student
7.2 Experimental Subject
Detail Particulars
Name Shreya
Age 18 years
Gender Female
Educational Qualification Graduation
Occupation Student
8. Procedure and Administration
8.1 Preliminary Set-up
• The laboratory should be well-illuminated and well-ventilated.
• The environment should be calm and quiet, free from distractions.
• Both lists (List A and List B) should be prepared beforehand to prevent any disturbance during
conduction of the experiment.
8.2 Preparation
Both subjects were seated comfortably and a calm environment was ensured. All material (memory
drum, both lists, stopwatch, response sheets) was kept ready beforehand.
8.3 Rapport
Rapport was established with both subjects; they were made to feel comfortable and were briefed in
general terms about the nature of the task, without revealing the specific hypothesis being tested, so as
not to bias their performance. Informed consent was taken from both subjects, and they were assured
that their responses would remain confidential.
8.4 Instructions
For the Control Subject: "The subject has to recall List A only for the experiment. It contains 10
words, each in CVC form. Each word will be shown for 3 seconds and you have to memorise the words.
After going over all 10 words, you will be asked to recall all the words. This process will continue until
you can recall all the words. At the end, you will be asked to recall the same 10 words learnt earlier, till
then you may rest."
For the Experimental Subject: "You will have to memorise the words of List A and List B, which have
10 words in the CVC form each. One word will be shown at a time for 3 seconds and you have to
memorise each word. You will be asked to memorise and recall each list. This process will continue
until you recall all words of List A. Then the second list, List B, will be shown and the same process will
be carried out. At the end, you will have to recall the 10 words of List A again."
8.5 Precautions
• Optimal conditions for the experiment should be ensured, and the subject should be calm and
relaxed.
• Both lists should be prepared in advance and should be shown consistently (same exposure
time) on every trial.
• It should be ensured that the subjects are not able to see or memorise items out of turn, or
otherwise cheat.
• The examiner should maintain uniform timing and tone while presenting the material to both
subjects.
• Sufficient rest should be given to the control subject between the recall of List A and the final
recall, matching the time taken by the experimental subject to learn List B, so that the retention
interval is comparable across groups.
8.6 Introspective Report
After completion of the experiment, an introspective report was taken from both subjects regarding their
subjective experience of the task, recorded here in the first person.
Control Subject (Kshitij): "I found it fairly easy to memorise the ten nonsense syllables of List A once I
began repeating them to myself silently after each exposure. Since I did not have to learn anything else
in between, I felt confident while recalling the list a second time. I did not experience much difficulty or
confusion during the task."
Experimental Subject (Shreya): "I was able to memorise List A without much trouble. However, once I
started learning List B, I noticed that some of its syllables felt similar in sound to those of List A, which
made it a little confusing. When I was finally asked to recall List A again, I felt a certain amount of
mental interference — a few responses from List B kept coming to mind in place of the correct List A
items, and I had to consciously try to separate the two lists in my memory."
(Sample introspective statements are provided above as a model; the actual notebook should record the
subject's own words as reported immediately after the experiment.)
9. Scoring and Interpretation
The number of trials taken by each subject to learn each list, and the number of List A items correctly
recalled at the end by each subject, were recorded as below.
9.1 Trial Details — Control Subject (List A)
9.2 Trial Details — Experimental Subject (List A)
9.3 Trial Details — Experimental Subject (List B)
[Link]. CVC Word T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
1 CAX ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2 TIY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3 ZOT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4 MUY ✓ ✓ ✓
5 PIZ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
6 GEH ✓ ✓ ✓
7 TIH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
8 ZAS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
9 BIY ✓ ✓
10 JEC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[Link]. CVC Word T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
1 CAX ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2 TIY ✓ ✓ ✓
3 ZOT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4 MUY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
5 PIZ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
6 GEH ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
7 TIH ✓ ✓ ✓
8 ZAS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
9 BIY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
10 JEC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[Link]. CVC Word T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
1 SIZ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2 XEL ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3 CEK ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4 QAR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
5 NDF ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
6 RIQ ✓ ✓ ✓
7 HOT ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
8 TIR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
9 MUF ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
10 ZOQ ✓ ✓ ✓
9.4 Recall of List A (After Interpolated Learning of List B)
[Link]. Word Control Subject (recalled) Experimental Subject (recalled)
1 CAX ✓ ✓
2 TIY ✓ ✓
3 ZOT ✓
4 MUY
5 PIZ ✓ ✓
6 GEH ✓
7 TIH ✓ ✓
8 ZAS ✓
9 BIY ✓ ✓
10 JEC ✓
Total 8 5
9.5 Formula and Calculation
Retroactive Inhibition (RI) is calculated using the following formula:
RI = [(Retention − Recall) / Retention] × 100
RI of the Control Subject = [(10 − 8) / 10] × 100 = 20%
RI of the Experimental Subject = [(10 − 5) / 10] × 100 = 50%
Interpretation: Memory refers to the cognitive system for storing and retrieving information, and
involves the processes of encoding, storage and retrieval. Forgetting refers to the apparent loss or
modification of information already stored, and may occur due to decay, interference, or a lack of
adequate retrieval cues. Retroactive inhibition specifically refers to interference with the retention of
information already present in memory, caused by new information subsequently entered into memory.
The present experiment aimed to observe the effect of interpolated activity upon the recall of previous
learning. The experimental subject had to recall two lists, List A and List B (10 CVC words each), and
this recall was compared with that of the control subject, who had only to memorise List A.
The control subject showed 20% forgetting of List A, while the experimental subject showed a memory
failure (attributable to retroactive inhibition) of 50%. This considerably larger drop in recall for the
experimental subject indicates that the interpolated learning of List B affected the experimental
subject's recall of List A.
10. Discussion
The results obtained are consistent with the hypothesis and with the broader interference theory of
forgetting. The classic two-list paradigm used here follows the design first introduced by Müller and
Pilzecker, who were among the first to demonstrate experimentally that newly acquired material can
disrupt the retention of previously learnt material. Later interference theorists, notably Benton
Underwood, extended this line of work through extensive experimentation and argued that forgetting in
verbal learning is primarily a function of interference between competing associations rather than the
simple passive decay of memory traces over time. Underwood's review also emphasised that the
degree of retroactive inhibition depends on variables such as the similarity between the original and
interpolated material and the amount of practice given on each list — factors that could be explored
further in an extension of the present study.
More recent work by Tulving and Psotka examined retroactive inhibition specifically within a free-recall
paradigm and suggested that at least part of the forgetting attributed to retroactive interference reflects
a temporary loss of access to stored information (a retrieval-cue problem) rather than a permanent
erasure of the original memory trace, since appropriate retrieval cues can often restore much of the
"lost" material. This perspective is broadly consistent with the introspective reports obtained in the
present experiment: the experimental subject described experiencing intrusions from List B while
attempting to recall List A, suggesting response competition at retrieval rather than a complete loss of
the original learning.
Overall, the greater percentage of forgetting shown by the experimental subject (50%) compared to the
control subject (20%) supports the view that the interpolated learning of List B retroactively interfered
with the recall of List A, in line with the findings of earlier interference research.
11. Conclusion
The control subject showed better recall of List A than the experimental subject, who had learnt an
interpolated list (List B) in between. This demonstrates that later learning can affect the recall of
previous learning — that is, retroactive inhibition was obtained in this experiment. The hypothesis is
therefore accepted.
12. References (APA Style)
• Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation
(Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press.
• Müller, G. E., & Pilzecker, A. (1900). Experimentelle Beiträge zur Lehre vom Gedächtnis.
Zeitschrift für Psychologie, Ergänzungsband 1.
• Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting. Psychological Review, 64(1), 49–60.
• Tulving, E., & Psotka, J. (1971). Retroactive inhibition in free recall: Inaccessibility of information
available in the memory store. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87(1), 1–8.