Proactive Interference in Human Predictive Learning

Castro, Leyre; Ortega, Nuria; Matute, Helena

doi:10.46867/c4dg6b

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under conditions of no semantic relatedness between the B and D targets, ΔTarget learning typically causes PI in the form of impaired A-D memory relative to a control condition, likely because B and D compete at retrieval (Anderson & Neely, 1996;Bower et al, 1994;Caplan et al, 2014;Castro et al, 2002;Jung, 1962Jung, , 1967Postman, 1962;Postman & Underwood, 1973;Twedt & Underwood, 1959a;Young, 1955). However, as the semantic relationship between B and D increases, PI decreases and, in some cases, PF occurs (Bruce, 1933;Dallett, 1964;R.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic relatedness proactively benefits learning, memory, and interdependence across episodes

Bennion,

Phong,

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past century of memory research, the interplay between initial and later-learned information in determining long-term memory retention has been of central interest. A likely candidate for determining whether initial and later memories interfere with or strengthen each other is semantic relatedness. Relatedness has been shown to retroactively boost initial memory and increase the interdependence between earlier and more recent experiences in memory. Here, we investigated the converse relationship of how relatedness proactively affects later memory for paired associates. In five experiments (N = 1000 total), we varied the relatedness between initial and later cues, initial and later targets, or both. Across experiments and conditions, relatedness profoundly benefited later-learned memories – in some conditions, low relatedness reliably produced proactive interference (versus a control condition) while high relatedness produced proactive facilitation within the same experiment. Additionally, relatedness also accelerated learning and increased interdependence between initial and later-learned pairs. In sum, we demonstrate the robust effects of relatedness in scaffolding memory for recently learned information and creating strong integrative links with prior experiences.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic relatedness proactively benefits learning, memory, and interdependence across episodes

Bennion,

Phong,

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When training on the first task (task A) disrupts learning from subsequent training on the second task (task B), this interference is known as anterograde (or proactive) interference. Anterograde interference has been observed in many forms of learning, suggesting that it reflects processes that are fundamental to learning and memory across domains (e.g., verbal learning [ Underwood 1957 ], associative learning [ Bouton 1993 ], predictive learning [ Castro et al 2002 ], motor learning [ Brashers-Krug et al 1996 ; Sing and Smith 2010 ; Cantarero et al 2013 ; Leow et al 2013 ; Lerner et al 2020 ], and perceptual learning [ Shibata et al 2017 ; Bang et al 2019 ]). Anterograde interference has been proposed to arise because training on task A prevents the formation of a memory of task B ( Turvey et al 1971 ; Petrusic and Dillon 1972 ; Carey 1973 ; Dillon 1973 ; Pearce and Hall 1980 ), because a memory of task B cannot be successfully retrieved ( Wickens et al 1981 ; Bouton 1993 ; Wixted and Rohrer 1993 ; Krakauer et al 2005 ; Bäuml and Kliegl 2013 ), and, most recently, because the memory of task B is corrupted ( Baudo 2023 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence that anterograde learning interference depends on the stage of learning of the interferer: blocked versus interleaved training

Ning

Wright

2023

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training on one task (task A) can disrupt learning on a subsequently trained task (task B), illustrating anterograde learning interference. We asked whether the induction of anterograde learning interference depends on the learning stage that task A has reached when the training on task B begins. To do so, we drew on previous observations in perceptual learning in which completing all training on one task before beginning training on another task (blocked training) yielded markedly different learning outcomes than alternating training between the same two tasks for the same total number of trials (interleaved training). Those blocked versus interleaved contrasts suggest that there is a transition between two differentially vulnerable learning stages that is related to the number of consecutive training trials on each task, with interleaved training presumably tapping acquisition, and blocked training tapping consolidation. Here, we used the blocked versus interleaved paradigm in auditory perceptual learning in a case in which blocked training generated anterograde—but not its converse, retrograde—learning interference (A→B, not B←A). We report that anterograde learning interference of training on task A (interaural time difference discrimination) on learning on task B (interaural level difference discrimination) occurred with blocked training and diminished with interleaved training, with faster rates of interleaving leading to less interference. This pattern held for across-day, within-session, and offline learning. Thus, anterograde learning interference only occurred when the number of consecutive training trials on task A surpassed some critical value, consistent with other recent evidence that anterograde learning interference only arises when learning on task A has entered the consolidation stage.

show abstract

Interference between cues of the same outcome depends on the causal interpretation of the events

Cobos

López

Luque

2007

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an interference-between-cues design, the expression of a learned Cue A --> Outcome 1 association has been shown to be impaired if another cue, B, is separately paired with the same outcome in a second learning phase. In the present study, we assessed whether this interference effect is mediated by participants' previous causal knowledge. This was achieved by having participants learn in a diagnostic situation in Experiment 1a, and then by manipulating the causal order of the learning task in Experiments 1b and 2. If participants use their previous causal knowledge during the learning process, interference should only be observed in the diagnostic situation because only there we have a common cause (Outcome 1) of two disjoint effects, namely cues A and B. Consistent with this prediction, interference between cues was only found in Experiment 1a and in the diagnostic conditions of Experiments 1b and 2.

show abstract

Proactive Interference in Human Predictive Learning

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

Semantic relatedness proactively benefits learning, memory, and interdependence across episodes

Semantic relatedness proactively benefits learning, memory, and interdependence across episodes

Evidence that anterograde learning interference depends on the stage of learning of the interferer: blocked versus interleaved training

Interference between cues of the same outcome depends on the causal interpretation of the events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About