Editing Interference theory (section)

==Retroactive interference==
Retroactive interference, also known as ''Retroactive inhibition'', is the interference of newer memories with the retrieval of older memories.<ref name="Edwards"/> In other words, subsequently learned memories directly contributes to the forgetting of previously learned memories. The effect of retroactive interference takes place when any type of skill has not been rehearsed over long periods.<ref name="Edwards"/> Of the two effects of interference theory, retroactive interference is considered the more common and more problematic type of interference compared to proactive interference.<ref name="Edwards"/>

RI is a classic paradigm that was first officially termed by Muller.<ref name = Muller>{{cite journal | last1 = Muller | first1 = G. E. | last2 = Pilzecker | first2 = A. | year = 1990 | title = Experimental contributions to memory theory | journal = Zeitschrift für Psychologie Eganzungsband | volume = 1 | pages = 1–300 }}</ref> These memory research pioneers demonstrated that filling the retention interval (defined as the amount of time that occurs between the initial learning stage and the memory recall stage) with tasks and material caused significant interference effects with the primary learned items.

As compared to proactive interference, retroactive interference may have larger effects because there is not only competition involved but also unlearning.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Melton, A.W.|author2=Lackum, W. J. von|year=1941|title=Retroactive and proactive inhibition in retention: evidence for a two-factor theory of retroactive inhibition|journal=American Journal of Psychology|volume=54|issue=2|pages=157–173|jstor=1416789|doi=10.2307/1416789}}</ref>

===Iconic research===

====Modified (free) recall====
Briggs's (1954) study modeled McGeoch's work on interference by setting the stage for a classic design of retroactive interference. In his study, participants were asked to learn 12 paired associates to a criterion of 100%. To ensure parsimony, these pairs can be labeled as A<sub>1</sub>-B<sub>1</sub>-, A<sub>2</sub>-B<sub>2</sub>-...A<sub> I </sub>-B<sub> I </sub> (also called AB/AC paradigm). Briggs used a "modified free recall" technique by asking participants to recall an item when cued with B<sub> I </sub>. Over multiple anticipation trials, participants learned B<sub> I </sub>  items through the prompt of B<sub> I </sub> items. After perfecting A<sub> I </sub>- B<sub> I </sub> learning, participants were given a new list of paired associates to learn; however B<sub> I </sub> items were replaced with C<sub> I </sub> items (now given a list of A<sub>1</sub>-C<sub>1</sub>-, A<sub>2</sub>-C<sub>2</sub>-...A<sub> I </sub>-C<sub> I </sub>). As the learning of A<sub> I </sub>-C<sub> I </sub> pairs increased, the learning of A<sub> I </sub>-B<sub> I </sub> pairs decreased. Eventually recalling the C<sub> I </sub> items exceeded the recall of the B<sub> I </sub> items, representing the phenomenon of retroactive interference.
A significant part of Briggs's (1954) study was that once participants were tested after a delay of 24 hours the Bi responses spontaneously recovered and exceeded the recall of the Ci items. Briggs explained the [[spontaneous recovery]] illustration as an account of A<sub> I </sub>-B<sub> I </sub> items competing with A<sub> I </sub>-C<sub> I </sub> items or, as McGeoch would define it: "a resultant [of] momentary dominance".<ref name = Briggs>{{cite journal | last1 = Briggs | first1 = G. E. | year = 1954 | title = Acquisition, extinction, and recovery functions in retroactive inhibition | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 47 | issue = 5| pages = 285–293 | doi=10.1037/h0060251 | pmid = 13163344}}</ref>

====Modified modified free recall====
J.M. Barnes and B.J. Underwood (1959) expanded Briggs's (1954) study by implementing a similar procedure. The main difference in this study, however, was that, unlike Briggs's (1954) "modified free recall"  (MFR) task where participants gave one-item responses, Barnes and Underwood asked participants to give both List 1 and List 2 responses to each cued recall task. Participants' ability to recall both items was termed the "modified modified free recall" (MMFR) technique. Equivocally to Briggs's (1954) results, RI occurred when C<sub> I </sub> recalled responses gradually came to exceed B<sub> I </sub> responses. Barnes and Underwood argued that because there was "unlimited recall time" to produce multiple-item responses, the fact that A<sub> I </sub>-C<sub> I </sub> responses still trumped A<sub> I </sub>-B<sub> I </sub> responses represented an account of unlearning.<ref name = barns>{{cite journal | last1 = Barnes | first1 = J. M | last2 = Underwood | first2 = B. J. | year = 1959 | title = Fate of first-list associations in transfer theory | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 58 | issue = 2| pages = 97–105 | doi=10.1037/h0047507| pmid = 13796886 }}</ref>

===Notable research concepts===

====Forgetting====
Since German psychologist H. Ebbinghaus (1885, 1913) made the first scientific studies on forgetting in the late nineteenth century, further research on the rate of forgetting presented information was found to be steep.<ref name="Edwards"/> While a variety of factors play a role in affecting the rate of forgetting, the general conclusion made is that 70% of originally recalled information is initially forgotten in 24 hours after a session of practice, followed by 80% of information forgotten within 48 hours.<ref name="Edwards"/> Afterwards, forgetting diminishes at a gradual rate, which leaves about 5% to 10% of retained information available for learners to access from practice until the next session.<ref name="Edwards"/> Despite the numbers, retroactive interference can be reduced significantly by implementing over-learning practice schedules, periodic refresh sessions when practicing skills, and skill rehearsal time for the inactive periods of practicing.<ref name="Edwards"/> Continuous skills are more resistant to the rate of forgetting compared to discrete skills, which indicates that the types of skills being practiced and retroactive interference significantly interact with one another.<ref name="Edwards"/>

===Theories===
The phenomenon of retroactive interference is highly significant in the study of memory as it has sparked a historical and ongoing debate in regards to whether the process of forgetting is due to the interference of other competing stimuli, or rather the unlearning of the forgotten material. The important conclusion one may gain from RI is that "forgetting is not simply a failure or weakness of the memory system" (Bjork, 1992), but rather an integral part of our stored knowledge repertoire. Although modern cognitive researchers continue to debate the actual causes of forgetting (e.g., competition vs. unlearning), retroactive interference implies a general understanding that additional underlying processes play a role in memory.

====Competition====
A standard explanation for the cause of RI is Competition. New associations compete with older associations and the more recent association would win out making it impossible to remember earlier associations. Spontaneous Recovery in MFR supports the claim of competition since after a rest period participants spontaneously remembered original pair associations that they were not able to remember right after the second test.<ref name="Briggs"/>

====Associative unlearning====
The associative unlearning hypothesis explains  RI by saying that new associations replace the old associations in memory causing the participant to forget the initial associations. Barnes and Underwood argued that A<sub> I </sub>-C<sub> I </sub> responses still outnumber A<sub> I </sub>-B<sub> I </sub> responses after the delay period supports the Associative Unlearning Hypothesis over Competition.<ref name="barns"/>

===Brain structures===
Retroactive Interference has been localized to the left anterior ventral [[prefrontal cortex]] by [[magnetoencephalography]] (MEG) studies investigating Retroactive Interference and [[working memory]] in elderly adults.<ref name = Solesio>{{cite journal | last1 = Solesio | first1 = E. | last2 = Lorenzo-López | first2 = L. | last3 = Campo | first3 = P. | last4 = López-Frutos | first4 = J.M. | last5 = Ruiz-Vargas | first5 = J.M. | last6 = Maestú | first6 = F. | year = 2009 | title = Retroactive interference in normal aging: A magnetoencephalography study | journal = Neuroscience Letters | volume = 456 | issue = 2| pages = 85–88 | doi=10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.087 | pmid=19429139| s2cid = 6152036 }}</ref> The study found that adults 55–67 years of age showed less magnetic activity in their prefrontal cortices than the control group. Executive control mechanisms are located in the [[frontal cortex]] and deficits in [[working memory]] show changes in the functioning of this brain area.<ref name="Solesio"/>

===Research===

====Pitch perception====
Retroactive Interference has also been investigated using pitch perception as the learning medium.<ref name = Massaro>{{cite journal | last1 = Massaro | first1 = D.W. | year = 1970 | title = Retroactive Interference in Short Term Memory for Pitch | url = https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/3341| journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 83 | issue = 1| pages = 32–39 | doi=10.1037/h0028566| pmid = 5436482 }}</ref> The researcher found that the presentation of subsequent stimuli in succession causes a decrease in recalled accuracy.<ref name="Massaro"/> Massaro found that the presentation of successive auditory tones, confused perceptual [[short-term memory]], causing Retroactive Interference as the new tone inhibits the retrieval of previously heard tones.<ref name="Massaro"/>

====Motor movement====
Wohldmann, Healey, and Bourne found that Retroactive Interference also affects the retention of motor movements.<ref name = Wohldmann>{{cite journal | last1 = Wohldmann | first1 = E.L. | last2 = Healy | first2 = A.F. | last3 = Bourne | first3 = Jr. | year = 2008 | title = A mental practice superiority effect: Less retroactive interference and more transfer than physical practice | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition | volume = 34 | issue = 4| pages = 823–833 | doi=10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.823| pmid = 18605871 }}</ref> Researchers found that retroactive interference affects the performance of old motor movements when newly acquired motor movements are practiced.<ref name="Wohldmann"/> Physical practice of newly executed motor movements decreased the retention and recall of previously learned movements.<ref name="Wohldmann"/> Despite the retroactive interference noted by Wohldmann et al., researchers noted that mental practice decreased the amount of retroactive interference, suggesting that mental practice is more flexible and durable over time.<ref name="Wohldmann"/>  This study of the superiority effect of physical practice is similar to the [[Word Superiority Effect]] made famous by Cattell.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Cattell | first1 = J. M. | year = 1886 | title = The time it takes to see and name objects | url = https://zenodo.org/record/1707687| journal = Mind | volume = 11 | issue = 41| pages = 63–65 | doi = 10.1093/mind/os-XI.41.63 }}</ref>

====Word tasks====
Retroactive Interference increases when the items are similar, therefore increasing association between them as shown by [[spreading activation]].<ref name = Barnes>{{cite journal | last1 = Barnes | first1 = J.M. | last2 = Underwood | first2 = B.J. | year = 1959 | title = Fate of first list association in transfer theory | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 58 | issue = 2| pages = 97–105 | doi=10.1037/h0047507| pmid = 13796886 }}</ref> Barnes and Underwood found that when participants in the experimental condition were presented with two similar word lists, the recollection of the first-word list decreased with the presentation of the second-word list.<ref name="Barnes"/> This finding contrasts the control condition as they had little Retroactive Inference when asked to recall the first-word list after a period of unrelated activity.<ref name="Barnes"/>