Interference theory is the theory of human memory. Interference occurs in learning; it is the idea that memories encoded in long-term memory (LTM) are forgotten, and can not be retrieved into short-term memory (STM) effectively due to disturbing, or inhibiting, memories of one another. Because there is a large amount of memory encoded comparably in LTM storage, the challenge for memory retrieval is to remember the specific memory to be retrieved and worked on in the temporary workspace provided at STM. Retention of information with respect to the relevant time from memory encoding to LTM has an effect on the level of interference power. There are two types of interference effects:
- proactive distractions (see Proactive learning),
- retroactive disorders (see Retroactive learning).
Video Interference theory
Histori
John A. BergstrÃÆ'¶m is credited as undertaking the first study of disruptions in 1892. His experiments are similar to the Stroop task and subject matter required to sort two stacks of cards with words into two piles. When the location is changed for the second stack, sorting is slower, indicating that the first sorting rules interfere with the new learning set. German psychologists continued on the field with Georg Elias MÃÆ'¼ller and Pilzecker in 1900 studying retroactive disorders. For later American confusion, MÃÆ'¼ller uses "associative Hemmung" (inhibition) as a blanket term for retroactive and proactive inhibition.
The next great advance came from American psychologist Benton J. Underwood in 1957. Underwood revisited the classical Ebbinghaus learning curve and found that much to be forgotten was due to the interruption of the previously studied material.
In 1924, James J. Jenkins and Karl Dallenbach demonstrated that everyday experiences can disrupt memories with experiments that result in better retention during sleep periods rather than over the same amount of time for activity. The United States again made progress in 1932 with John A. McGeoch suggesting that the theory of decay should be replaced by the theory of interference. The latest major paradigm shift comes when Underwood proposes that proactive inhibition is more important or meaningful than retroactive retardation in accounting to forget.
Maps Interference theory
Proactive distractions
Proactive disorders, also known as proactive inhibition , are a disturbance of old memories with new memory retrieval. Of the two effects of the theory of interference, proactive interference is considered a less common and less problematic disorder compared to retroactive disorders. It has been hypothesized that forgetting work memories will not exist if not for proactive disorders.
Context
Interactive interactive formation occurs with the memory being studied in the same context. A common example is observing previous motor skills of a skill that impairs new motor skills learned in other skills from scratch. Proactive distractions are also associated with a worse list discrimination, which occurs when participants are asked to assess whether an item has appeared on a previously studied list. If items or pairs to be studied are conceptually related to each other, then proactive distractions have a greater effect. Delos Wickens found that building a proactive disorder was released when there was a change in the category of items studied, leading to improved processing in STM. Presenting new skills later in practice can greatly reduce the desired proactive interference for participants to have the best chance to encode fresh new memory into LTM.
Brain structure
The leading experimental technique for studying proactive disorders in the brain is the task of "recent probes", in which participants have to set certain items into memory and they are required to recall the specific items indicated by the probe. Using the newest probe tasks and fMRI, the brain mechanisms involved in the resolution of proactive disorders have been identified as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and left anterior prefrontal cortex.
Research
With list
Researchers have studied the combined effect of proactive and retroactive disorders using a list of items to keep in mind. As expected, withdrawal is hampered by increasing the number of items in the given list. Proactive distractions also affect learning when dealing with multiple lists. Researchers have participants learning a list of 10 adjectives pairwise. The researchers will consider the list to be learned if participants can correctly remember eight out of ten items. After two days, participants can recall nearly 70% of the items. However, they were asked to memorize the new list a day after knowing the first one only remember 40%. Those who study the third list remember 25% of the items. Therefore, proactive distractions affect the correct withdrawal from the last list being studied, because of the previous one, or two. In the event of forgetting, the effect of Proactive interference is supported by further research using different methods. The effect of proactive interference is reduced when the test is immediate and when the new target list is clearly different from the list that has been studied previously.
Performance range
Performance range refers to the working memory capacity. It is hypothesized that the range of performance is limited in language comprehension, problem solving, and memory. Proactive noise affects vulnerabilities to limit performance limitations, as the range performance in experimental experiments is worse than performance in previous trials. With a single task, proactive interference has fewer effects on participants with high working memory ranges than low. With multiple tasks, both are equally vulnerable.
To be different, others try to investigate the relationship of proactive interference when asked to forget. Turvey and Wittlinger designed experiments to test the effect of gestures such as "not remembering" and "not remembering" with the material being studied today. Although "do not remember" has a significant effect in reducing proactive disorders, but "do not remember" previously encoded and stored information does not significantly reduce its effect. Therefore, these related cues do not directly control the potential effects of proactive disorders in short-term memory ranges.
Proactive distractions have shown an effect during the learning phase in terms of stimulation at the stage of acquisition and retrieval with human behavioral tasks, such as those found by Castro, Ortega and Matute. With 106 participants, they investigated two main questions: if two guides were studied as predictors of the same result (one by one), would the second cue association be retarded? And second, after the second association is fully studied, will there still be any effect on the next trial? The study, as expected, indicates underdevelopment and disturbance in associations, due to the effects of Proactive Disorders.
Retroactive disorders
Retroactive disorders, also known as retroactive inhibition, are a disturbance of newer memories with longer retention of memories. In other words, then learning about memories directly contributes to forgetting previously learned memories. The effect of retroactive disorders occurs when all types of skills have not been trained over a long period of time. Of the two effects of the theory of interference, retroactive interference is considered a more general and more problematic type of interference than proactive disorders.
RI is the classic paradigm that was first officially termed by Muller. This memory research pioneer suggests that filling retention intervals (defined as the amount of time that occurs between the initial learning stage and the memory recall stage) with tasks and materials caused by significant interference effects with the primary studied item.
Compared to proactive disorders, retroactive interference can have a greater effect due to the fact that not only is the competition involved, but also not studied.
iconic research
Modified reminder (free)
Briggs (1954) studies model McGeoch's work on disorder by setting the stage for the classic design of retroactive disorders. In the study, participants were asked to study 12 couples paired with 100% criteria. To ensure parsimony, this pair can be labeled as A 1 -B 1 -, A 2 -B 2 -... A i -B i (also called AB/AC paradigm). Briggs uses the "recall free modified" technique by asking participants to remember an item when marked B i . During several anticipatory trials, participants studied the item B i via a prompt from the B i item. After completing the i - B i lesson, participants were given a list of newly paired peers to learn; but the item B i is replaced with the item C i (now listed A 1 -C 1 -, A < sub> 2 -C 2 -... A i -C i ). Since lesson A i -C i is in pairs, lesson A i -B i decreases. Finally, recalling the item C i exceeds the B i item recall, representing the retroactive interference phenomenon. An important part of the Briggs (1954) study was that after participants were tested after a 24 hour delay, spontaneous Bi response recovered and surpassed the recall of the Ci item. Briggs describes a spontaneous recovery illustration as an account of an item A i -B i that competes with A i -C i item or, as McGeoch would define it: "the resulting temporary dominance".
Modified modified free lottery
J.M. Barnes and B.J. Underwood (1959) expanded Briggs' (1954) research by implementing similar procedures. The main difference in this study, however, is that unlike Briggs (1954) the "free remembering modification" (MFR) assignment in which participants give one item response, Barnes and Underwood ask participants to provide both List 1 and List 2 responses for each memory leave of duty. The participant's ability to remember both items is called "modified modified free recall" (MMFR) technique. Equivalently with the result of Briggs (1954), RI occurs when the repetitive response of C i gradually exceeds the response of B i . Barnes and Underwood argue that since there is an "unlimited withdrawal time" to produce multiple item responses, the fact that the responses A i -C i is still false A i -B i responses representing accounts not learned.
The famous research concept
Forgetting
Because German psychologist H. Ebbinghaus (1885, 1913) made the first scientific study of forgetting in the late nineteenth century, further research on the degree of forgetting the information presented was found to be steep. While various factors play a role in affecting the forgot rate, the general conclusion made is that 70% of initially withdrawn information was initially forgotten within 24 hours after the training session, followed by 80% forgotten information within 48 hours. Thereafter, forgetting decreases at a gradual rate, leaving about 5% to 10% of the information available to be accessed by participants from the exercise until the next session. Despite the amount, retroactivity disorders can be significantly reduced by applying an over-learning exercise schedule, periodic refresher sessions while practicing skills, and skill training time for nonuse practice periods. Continuous skills are more resistant to forgetting rates than discrete skills, which indicate that the types of skills practiced and retroactivity disorders significantly interact with each other.
Theory
The phenomenon of retroactive disorders is significant in memory studies because it has sparked a historical and sustained debate over whether the forgetting process is due to the interference of other competing stimuli, or rather the release of forgotten material. The important conclusion that can be obtained from RI is that "forget not only the failure or weakness of the memory system" (Bjork, 1992), but rather an integral part of the treasury of stored knowledge. Although modern cognitive researchers continue to debate the true cause of forgetting (eg, competition vs. not learning), retroactive disorders imply a general understanding that additional underlying processes play a role in memory.
Competition
The standard explanation for the cause of RI is the Competition. New associations compete with older associations and newer associations will prevail so it is impossible to remember the previous associations. Spontaneous recovery in MFR supports competitive claims because after the break period the participants spontaneously recall the original pairing associations they can not remember right after the second test.
Relative release
The associative unlearning hypothesis explains RI by saying that the new association replaces the old associations in memory that cause participants to forget the initial association. Barnes and Underwood argue that the responses A i -C i still exceed the number of sub-responses i -B i after the period delay supporting the Association Release Hypothesis on Competition.
Brain structure
Retroactive disorders have been localized to the anterior left ventral prefrontal cortex by a magnetoencephalography study (MEG) investigating Retroactive Interference and working memory in adult elderly. The study found that adults 55-67 years showed less magnetic activity in their prefrontal cortex than the control group. The executive control mechanisms located in the frontal cortex and deficits in working memory show a change in the functionality of this brain area.
Research
Field perception
Retroactive Interference has also been studied using pitch perception as a learning medium. Researchers found that subsequent stimulus presentations in succession caused a decrease in the recalled accuracy. Massaro found that consecutive hearing tone presenting, short-term memory confusion, caused Retroactive Interference as a new tone to inhibit the sound of previously heard tones.
Motor movement
Wohldmann, Healey, and Bourne found that Retroactive Interference also affects motor movement retention. Researchers found that retroactive disorders affect the performance of old motor movements when newly acquired motor movements are practiced. Physical exercises of newly executed motor movements decrease retention and recall previously learned movements. Although retroactive disorders are noted by Wohldmann et al., The researchers note that mental exercise decreases the amount of retroactive disorders, suggesting that mental exercise is more flexible and durable over time. The study of the effect of the superiority of physical practice is similar to Cattell's Caution Effect.
Word assignment
Retroactive disorders increase when items are similar, thus improving the relationship between them as indicated by dissemination of activation. Barnes and Underwood found that when participants in experimental conditions were presented with two similar word lists, the first word list reflection decreased with the presentation of the second word list. These findings contrast with control conditions because they have little Retroactive Inference when asked to remember the first word list after an unrelated activity period.
Output noise
Output Output occurs when the initial action of remembering specific information interferes with the retrieval of the original information. Example scenarios where Output Interference might occur if someone has made a list of items to purchase at a grocery store, but then forgets to take the list when leaving home. The act of remembering multiple items on the list reduces the possibility of remembering the other items on the list.
Research
Short-term memory
Henry L. Roediger III and Schmidt found that retrieval measures can serve as a source of failure to remember, using several experiments that test the categorized and paired associative withdrawal lists. Three experiments were conducted where the subject was first presented with a list of categories and then asked to recall items in the list after being shown the category name as a gesture. The farther the test position of the category leads to a decrease in remembering words. The fourth experiment reveals that only the latest items are present in the output interference on the paired associative list.
Long-term memory
Smith found that if a category with the corresponding item was successfully invoked, a systematic decline would occur when remembering items in a category across the entire output sequence. He did some experiments to determine the input needed to generate the Output Interference. In the first recall word experiment per category is greater at 60 seconds than 30 seconds while retrieving the last input category to prevent the current effect. In his second experiment, he changed the instruction, the words used, and the test properties for retention, and showed by the introduction procedure, there is Output Interference but the effect is limited to the first three output positions. Even if taking items is necessary to remember, it's not important for performance in recognition tactics. The withdrawal of organized information from long-term memory has a negative effect on the following items being remembered. In long-term memory, Smith points out that Output Output has an effect on extra-core material, which is represented as contextual information, rather than the core material, which is highly available as a result of the organization. Short and long-term memories centered on the hippocampus and amygdala.
Age effects
In short-term memory and long-term memory Smith measures output disruption in three age groups (ages 20-39, 40-59, 60-80 years). The results of the recall performance show significant differences due to the age at which the older group attracts fewer items than the middle group that draws fewer items than the youngest group. Overall Smith concludes that memory decline appears with increasing age by forgetting long-term memory rather than forgetting short-term memory and short-term memory unaffected by age. However the output noise can not explain the memory deficit seen in the older subject.
Recent studies of adult-free memory and cognitive triage show similar findings from worse recall performance in older adults compared with younger adults. Although it also shows that older adults have an increased susceptibility to output disruption compared to younger adults and differences increase when additional items are withdrawn.
Similar theories
Decay Theory
Decay theory describes that memory weakens over time despite consolidation and storage. This is to say that even if you remember certain details, over time you may experience greater difficulty in retrieving the details you encoded. It has been suggested that the time interval between encoding and retrieval determines the recall accuracy.
A practical example of the theory of decay is seen in the financial sector. If you open a bank account and do not deposit or withdraw money from your account, after a certain period the bank will make the account inactive. The account owner must then reopen the account to keep the account active. Bank account (memory) is inactive (memory weakens) from time to time if there is no activity in the account (if memory is not retrieved after a certain period of time).
Equation
The theory of decay is similar to the theory of interference in the way memory recalls long lost over time. Memories are lost in the Decay Theory with the passage of time. In Interference Theory, memory is lost because of newly acquired memories. Both Decay Theory and Interference are involved in the theories of forgetting psychology.
Differences
The theory of decay and interference differs in Interference Theory which has a second stimulus that inhibits the first stimulus taking. The theory of decay is caused by time itself. Decay Theory is a passive method to forget because no disturbance is produced. Interference Theory is an active process because the act of learning new information directly inhibits the memory of previously stored information.
Duplicate duty breakdown
Dual-task interference is a kind of annoyance that occurs when two tasks are attempted simultaneously. Harold Pashler of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada wrote a paper summing up the theoretical approach to dual distraction. The basis of his research sees, when one tries two or more tasks at the same time, why in some cases is one that is successful in completing their task and in other cases is not.
Capacity sharing
Pashler proposes that the brain contains one mental entity to where all tasks must be performed. A real example of this is going to the dentist; the only place to fill the cavities is in the dentist's office. When the brain attempts to complete two tasks, both tasks are present in the same area of ​​mind and compete for processing capacity and speed. This relates to the theory of interference when tasks compete. Interference theory says that new information learning reduces the retrieval of older information and this is true in multiple task interferences. The dominant assignment of both hinders other tasks from completion. It is thought that the dominant task will be a new task because the previously completed task will be stored in memory. The new task will then be successfully completed as more thought effort is required to complete the new task and the previously completed task will not be completed as the new task dominates the mental capacity. Just as the Interference Theory states, the completion of new tasks hinders the completion of previously completed tasks due to the distribution of capacity.
Cross conversation model
Cross talk is communication between sensory input, processing and individual thinking. The theory is that if two processes are being activated and they are not the same in any way (baking and going on vacation), the brain gets confused because the separate cognitive areas are being activated and there is conflicting communication between the two. By contrast, if both processes are similar (baking and pouring milk), there will be less crosstalk and more productive and uninterrupted cognitive processes.
Crosstalk is used by engineers to discuss the degradation of communication channels due to context dependency.
Navon and Miller claim that Double Duty Disorder is caused by a conflict of results that results from a task that generates, "output, throughput, or harmful side effects for processing [other tasks]". This is basically the concept of Interference Theory. The thoughts, outputs and side effects of one task either affect the previous or next memory.
Neurobiology
Tasks Stroop and Simon
Performance Stroop and Simon tasks were monitored in 10 healthy young adults using MRI scans. Functional images are obtained at certain time intervals during scanning of each subject. Brain activation during the Stroop and Simon tasks is very similar, including anterior cingulate, additional motor cortex, visual association cortex, inferior temporal cortex, inferior parietal cortex, inferior frontal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and caudate nucleus. The interference effects in the Stroop and Simon tasks activate the same brain region at the same time distribution.
Apps
Ads
It has been shown that memory will be lower when the consumer subsequently sees an ad for a competing brand in the same product class. The exposure to the next similar ad does not cause disruption to the consumer when the brand is ranked for a possible purchase. This shows that the purpose of information processing can moderate the interference effects of competing ads. Competitive brand advertising not only disrupts consumer memories of past advertising but also interferes with learning new unique brand information in the future.
Reduce competitive ad interruptions
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments