Editing Interference theory (section)

=== Research ===

====With lists====
Researchers have studied the joint influence of proactive and retroactive interference using a list of items to be remembered. As expected, the recall was hampered by increasing the number of items in a given list.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Murdock|first=Bennet B.|title=Short-term memory and paired-associate learning|journal=Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior|date=1 November 1963|volume=2|issue=4|pages=320–328|doi=10.1016/S0022-5371(63)80100-0}}</ref> Proactive interference also affected learning when dealing with multiple lists. Researchers had participants learn a list of ten paired adjectives.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Greenberg|first=R.|author2=Underwood, B.J.|title=Retention as a function of stage of practice|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|date=August 1950|volume=40|issue=4|pages=452–7|pmid=15436941|doi=10.1037/h0062147}}</ref> The experimenters would consider a list to be learned if the participant could correctly recall eight of the ten items. After two days, participants could recall close to 70% of the items. However, those asked to memorize a new list the day after learning the first one had a recall of only 40%. Those who learned a third list recalled 25% of the items. Therefore, proactive interference affected the correct recall of the last list learned, because of the previous one, or two. In terms of forgetting, the effect of proactive interference was supported by further studies using different methods.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Underwood|first=Benton J.|title=Interference and forgetting.|journal=Psychological Review|date=1 January 1957|volume=64|issue=1|pages=49–60|doi=10.1037/h0044616|pmid=13408394}}</ref> The effect of proactive interference was reduced when the test was immediate and when the new target list was different from the previously learned lists.

==== Span performance ====
Span performance refers to [[working memory]] capacity. It is hypothesized that span performance is limited in [[language comprehension]], problem-solving, and memory.<ref name=may>{{cite journal|last=May|first=CP|author2=Hasher, L |author3=Kane, MJ |title=The role of interference in memory span|journal=[[Memory and Cognition]]|date=September 1999|volume=27|issue=5|pages=759–67|pmid=10540805|doi=10.3758/bf03198529|url=http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Kane_Role_1999.pdf|doi-access=free}}</ref>  Proactive Interference affects susceptibility to span performance limitations, as span performance in later experimental trials were worse than performance in earlier trials.{{clarify|date=June 2012}}<ref name=may /><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kane|first=Michael J.|author2=Engle, Randall W.|title=Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval.|journal=[[Journal of Experimental Psychology|Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition]]|date=1 January 2000|volume=26|issue=2|pages=336–358|doi=10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.336|pmid=10764100|url=http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Kane_Working-Memory_2000.pdf}}</ref> With single tasks, proactive interference had less effect on participants with high working memory spans than those with low ones. With dual tasks, both types were similarly susceptible.

To differ, others have tried to investigate the relation of proactive interference when cued to forget. Turvey and Wittlinger designed an experiment to examine the effects of cues such as "not to remember" and "not to recall" with currently learned material. While "not to remember" had a significant effect in reducing proactive interference, cued to "not to recall" previously encoded and stored information did not significantly reduce the effect. Therefore, these associated cues do not directly control the potential effect of proactive interference on short-term memory span.{{clarify|reason=This whole paragraph is hard to understand|date=June 2012}}<ref>{{cite journal|last=Turvey|first=M. T.|author2=Wittlinger, Roy P.|title=Attenuation of proactive interference in short-term memory as a function of cueing to forget.|journal=[[Journal of Experimental Psychology]]|date=1 January 1969|volume=80|issue=2, Pt.1|pages=295–298|doi=10.1037/h0027283}}</ref>

Proactive interference has shown an effect during the learning phase in terms of stimuli at the acquisition and retrieval stages with behavioral tasks for humans, as found by Castro, Ortega, and Matute.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Castro, Leyre |author2=Ortega, Nuria |author3=Matute, Helena |year=2002|title=Proactive interference in human predictive learning|journal=[[International Journal of Comparative Psychology]]|volume=15|pages=55–68|doi=10.46867/C4DG6B |citeseerx=10.1.1.149.8082|s2cid=3908660 |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cf1r6dj }}</ref> With 106 participants, they investigated two main questions: if two cues are learned as predictors of the same outcome (one after the other), would the second-cue outcome association be retarded? And secondly, once the second association is fully learned, will there still be an effect on subsequent trials? The research, as predicted, showed retardation and impairment in associations, due to the effect of Proactive Interference.