SISTER NIVEDITA UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
Lab Report for the Practical on
RETROACTIVE INHIBITION
Submitted By
Name of the student: Aleena Mohsin
Enrollment no.: 2512230001009
Registration no.: 250010093172
Programme: [Link]. In psychology
Semester: I
Section: A
Submitted To
Ms. Shawni Dutta,
Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, Sister Nivedita University
1 | Page
INDEX
SL. SPECIFIC PROBLEM PAGE DATE OF TEACHER’S
NO. NO. SUBMISSION SIGNATURE
1. To determine the effect of 03-16 13.11.2025
retroactive inhibition on the
capacity of memorization of the
subject.
2 | Page
General Problem:
On memory
Specific problem:
To determine the effect of Retroactive 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. He introduced his device to provide a large quantity of material of
uniform difficulty; uniform in the sense that they all lack previously established associations.
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
3 | Page
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. It is influenced by various factors, such as learning
methods, age of the subject, method of task presentation as well as previous and following learning.
This capacity varies from person to person and can be influenced by factors such as:
● Attention: Ability to focus on relevant information.
● 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.
Retroactive inhibition, also known as retroactive interference, refers to a psychological process
where newly learned information interferes with the recall of earlier learning. The prefix
retromeans “backward,” emphasizing that the influence of new learning acts backward to
disrupt previously stored memories. In simple terms, when an individual acquires new
knowledge or skills, it may become more difficult to remember older ones. For example, after
learning a new way to make a paper airplane, one might forget the original method. This
interaction between new and old learning is one of the most widely studied causes of forgetting
in experimental psychology.
In experimental terms, retroactive inhibition is described as a decrease in memory retention
when another activity or learning task is inserted between the original learning and recall. When
learning a new task (Task B) improves recall of an earlier one (Task A), it is known as positive
transfer. Conversely, when the new learning interferes with recalling the earlier one, it is
negative transfer, which exemplifies retroactive inhibition. Here, the second task disrupts the
memory traces of the first task rather than the activity itself.
The earliest systematic study of this phenomenon was carried out by Müller and Pilzecker in
1900. They found that when participants learned a second list of nonsense syllables
immediately after the first, their recall of the initial list declined significantly. This led to the
Perseveration-Consolidation Theory, which proposed that after learning, there is a brief period
of neural activity, or perseveration, during which memory traces are solidified in the brain. If a
new task is introduced during this period, it interrupts consolidation, weakening memory
retention. This theory established the groundwork for modern neuroscience, which views
memory consolidation as an essential process for long-term storage, primarily involving the
hippocampus.
Later, behaviourist theorists such as Thorndike and Hull (1930s–1940s) explained retroactive
inhibition using response competition theory, suggesting that interference occurs when multiple
responses compete for the same stimulus. McGeoch and McDonald (1931) expanded on this
4 | Page
with the two-factor theory, which proposed that retroactive inhibition results from both
unlearning previous responses and competition during retrieval.
Cognitive psychologists further refined these ideas through the encoding-retrieval interaction
model (Tulving & Thomson, 1973), proposing that new learning modifies retrieval cues linked
to earlier memories, making old information harder to access. Modern neuroscience attributes
this interference to neural plasticity, were new learning overlaps with existing neural pathways,
altering or weakening older connections.
As Bjork (1992) observed, forgetting is not a defect but an essential part of how memory
functions—helping the brain stay adaptive by retaining relevant information and letting go of
what is no longer needed. Retroactive inhibition, therefore, highlights how forgetting plays a
constructive role in the continuous process of learning and cognitive development.
Therefore, based on these ideas, the aim of the present experiment is to determine the effect of
Retroactive Inhibition on the capacity of memorization of the subject.
Preliminaries:
• Name of the subject: A.D
• Age of the subject: 18
• Sex of the subject: Female
• Educational qualification of the subject: Under graduate
• Language known to the subject: English
• Condition of the subject: normal, attentive and cooperative
• Environmental conditions: Natural Setting
• Date of the experiment: 5th November, 2025
• Time of the experiment: 9:30 AM — 12:10 PM
Materials Required:
• 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 Retroactive inhibition on the capacity of
memorization of the subject.
• Independent Variable: Retroactive Inhibition.
• Dependent Variable: Capacity of Memorization.
• Stimulus: List of non-sense syllable.
5 | Page
• 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:
● Visual presentation of List A till 100% criteria of mastery
● Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
● Non-Interfering Filler Task for 5 minutes (draw lines)
● 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 till 100% criteria of mastery
● Post Criterion Task (PCT) will be taken
● Visual presentation of List C for 5 minutes (as an interfering task)
● 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
6 | Page
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: Then List A should be presented and proceeded up to 100%
criterion of learning. Post Criterion trial (PCT) should be taken. The time taken for learning
and memorizing list A should be noted.
During the retention interval, the subject should be asked to draw lines for 5 minutes
(non-interfering Filler task).
Then 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: Then List B should be presented and proceeded up to 100%
criterion of learning. Post Criterion trial (PCT) should be taken.
7 | Page
During the retention interval, list C should be presented and the subject should be made to learn
it for 5 minutes.
Then the subject should be asked to recall list B, 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. Then List A was presented to the subject till 100% mastery of
the task. Post criterion trial was taken. After that the subject was asked to draw lines for 5 minutes.
Then 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. Then List B was presented to the subject till 100% mastery of the task. Post criterion
trial was taken. After that List B was presented for 5 minutes. Then 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 retroactive inhibition were
calculated. A comparative chart was drawn and the data was represented graphically.
Rules for Preparing Nonsense Syllables:
● 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.
8 | Page
● 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:
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.
9 | Page
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:
● 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
1 LIR LIR
2 PAG SAG
3 DOP DOF
4 VEB
5 SAG
6 NER
7 POF
8 BUV
9 NES
10 | Page
10 POG
Number of correct reproductions 01
Memory span of the subject 01
Length of the list 03
11 | Page
Table 2: The data for the Control Condition
List of Nonsense Trial 1 Trial 2 PCT Rete Recall
Syllables ntion
inter
val
TOG NUP TOG TOG VAG
NUP TOG NUP NUP NED
MIV MIV MIV MIV TIV
No. of correct 01 03 03 03
response
Percentage of 33.33% 100% 100% 100%
correct response
12 | Page
Table 3: The data for the Experimental Condition
List of Nonsense Trial 1 PCT Rete Recall
Syllables ntion
inter
val
HEG HEG HEG HEG
VIK VIK VIK VIK
GOM GOM GOM GOM
No. of correct 03 03 03
response
Percentage of 100% 100% 100%
correct response
13 | Page
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 B)]
Proactive Inhibition = {(3 - 3) / 3} x 100 = 0
Hence, here the calculated percentage of Retroactive inhibition is: 0%
Report on subjective experience:
“Initially I was excited but then after I got the instructions it was pretty boring but throughout it was
comfortable and convenient.”
Comparative chart:
Forgetting
Percentage of Percentage of
Condition correct recall Retroactive
Due to Time
Due to Time Inhibition
(Delayed Recall) Gap and
Gap
Retroaction
Control
100% 0% -
condition
0%
Experimental
100% - 0%
condition
Graphical representation of data:
14 | Page
15 | Page
Interpretation:
The experiment was made to determine the effect of retroactive inhibition on the memorisation
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 rule was engaged in a non
interfering filler task) is 100% forgetting (due to time gap) is 0%.
In the experimental condition the percentage of correct recall (delayed recall when the subject that
recall was list C) which acts as an non-interfering task after learning the list B is 100% and
forgetting (due to time gap and retroaction) is 0%.
From the appropriate calculation the percentage of retroactive inhibition was found to be 0%.
Comparing the two percentage of correct recall it can be said that in this experiment there is some
or no amount of retroactive inhibition because the percentage of correct recall was lower higher
equal in experimental condition where the subject had previously learned a list of Nonsense
Syllables (list-C) later on which act as interfering task in comparison to controlled condition where
the subject was involved in non-interfering task during the retention interval.
This suggests that in the experiment, condition learning of list C interferes or does not interfere with
the subjects ability to recall list- B, while in the controlled condition where the subject was busy
with the non interfering filler task the percentage of correct recall of list A is higher lower similar.
Conclusion:
Thus from the above experiment we determine the effect of retroactive inhibition on the
memorisation capacity of the subject and found that there is no amount of retroactive inhibition in
the present case.
16 | Page