1

Recall under interference task

Recall under interference task (An exploration of human memory capacity)

Submitted to: Mr. Emad Uddin

Department of Psychology, University of Karachi

Submitted by: Zoya Yousuf

312: Introduction to Psychology

BS 1st Year

Department of Psychology, University of Karachi

January 20th, 2025

 2
Recall under interference task

Abstract

This study examined the effects of interference on memory recall using a recall-under-interference task.

Participants were presented with a list of digits and asked to recall them in the correct order following

an interfering task. Results indicated that interference significantly impaired recall performance, as

participants in the interference condition demonstrated lower accuracy compared to those in a non-

interference condition. These findings support the notion that interference disrupts the retrieval

process, leading to diminished recall performance. However, the study faced limitations, including the

influence of numbers with inherent associations and the repetition of certain digits, which affected the

validity of the results and prevented full confirmation of the hypothesis. The task was developed and

implemented using PsychoPy software and Python, a versatile programming language widely used in

cognitive and behavioral research. The implications of these findings for understanding human memory

and the effects of interference on cognitive performance are discussed.

 3
Recall under interference task

Introduction

Memory recall is a fundamental cognitive process that allows individuals to retrieve previously

stored information. However, this process is often disrupted by interference, a phenomenon where

competing information impairs the retrieval of target memories. Interference theory, initially proposed

by McGeoch (1942), posits that forgetting occurs not because information is lost but because competing

memories hinder access to it. Proactive interference, where older memories interfere with the retrieval

of newer ones, and retroactive interference, where new information disrupts the recall of older

material, are two well-documented types of interference (Postman & Underwood, 1973). These effects

are particularly pronounced in tasks requiring sequential recall, as overlapping information creates

cognitive conflict (Wixted, 2005).

Experimental studies have demonstrated that recall accuracy decreases significantly when

participants are exposed to interference tasks, such as memorizing overlapping word lists, digit

sequences, or spatial patterns (Kane & Engle, 2000). Additionally, the duration and complexity of the

interfering stimulus have been shown to exacerbate memory impairment (Anderson & Neely, 1996).

Neuroimaging studies further suggest that interference disrupts the neural processes underlying

memory retrieval, particularly in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, which are crucial for resolving

cognitive conflict and maintaining accurate recall (Jonides & Nee, 2006).

Understanding the mechanisms of interference in memory recall is critical for improving

cognitive performance in educational, clinical, and professional settings. By investigating how factors

such as task complexity, stimulus duration, and individual differences influence recall performance,

researchers can develop strategies to mitigate the negative effects of interference. This paper explores

the role of interference in memory recall, with a focus on experimental findings, theoretical
 4
Recall under interference task

implications, and practical applications..In this task, participants are presented with a series of titles and

then asked to recall them after a delay, during which they are exposed to interfering information.

Independent variable in our experiment is the 3 digits that is presented before call, the time

duration which is 5,10, and 18 seconds. In Dependent variables the time such as 5, 10 and 18 sec and

the error made such as 911 was incorrected by 7 students. Control variable include the participants of

university.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that hen duration is low the recall is highest when duration is high the recall is low.
 5
Recall under interference task

Methodology

Technique

Convinent sampling technique.

Sample

Material:

The material required for experiment include participant which done the experiment, libarary (a silent

place) , laptop and computer.

Research design:

A list of 15 digit Participants are The number of

A group of
number is asked to recall correctly
students are
presented on the the digit recalled digit is
required for task.
screen. numbers. measured

Procedure

Randomly selected participants from university took them to a silent room which is a library,

participants were seated, explain them the purpose and the procedure of task. Present the list of 15

digits every digit has different time duration such as some digits had duration of 5 seconds 10 seconds

and 18 seconds; ask participant to record the digit correctly. Collect participants response through

keyboard and mouse interface. After completing the task the students leave the library.
 6
Recall under interference task

Result

Result 5 second trials (T=240) 10 second trials (T=240) 18 second trial(T=240)

Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct

112 128 140 100 136 104

46.7% 53.3% 58.3% 41.7% 56.7% 43.3%

Table 1 results from all trials combined

911(18 second trial) (T= 48)

Incorrect Correct

7 41

14.6% 85.4%

Table 2 results from trials of the number 911

5 second trials(T=96) 10 second trials(T=144) 18 second trials(T=96)

Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect Correct

55 41 94 50 82 14

57.3% 42.7% 65.3% 34.7% 85.4 % 14.6%

Table 3 Results excluding repetitive numbers

 7
Recall under interference task

Discussion

The hypothesis proposed for this study was partially supported due to the presence of repetitive

and familiar numbers (See table I). A notable issue encountered involved the digits "911," which

participants frequently recalled due to their historical and cultural significance. Majority of the

participants identified this number correctly, while very few did not (See table II). Familiarity

significantly enhances memory recall because the brain efficiently retrieves information that has been

repeatedly encountered or has strong associations. Familiar events or sequences like "911" become

"semantic memory anchors," linking related details together in memory (Tulving, 1985). This occurs

because familiar stimuli are processed more fluently, a phenomenon known as the fluency heuristic,

where ease of processing influences perceptions of familiarity and recall accuracy (Kelley & Jacoby,

1996).

For example, numbers or events tied to significant cultural or emotional contexts (e.g.,

emergency numbers, historical dates) are easier to recall because of their repeated exposure and strong

emotional associations. These stimuli often tap into collective memory and are rehearsed frequently in

society, enhancing their retrieval strength (Brown & Kulik, 1977).

Another challenge stemmed from the repetition of numbers, such as "377" and "733," which

participants found easier to recall due to their repetitive structure. As research indicates repetition

enhances memory recall by strengthening neural pathways, leading to improved encoding and retrieval

processes. This effect, often referred to as the "spacing effect" or "repetition priming," occurs because

repeated exposure allows the brain to consolidate information into long-term memory more effectively

(Ebbinghaus, 1913; Roediger & Butler, 2011).

Additionally, repetitive information creates familiarity, which can reduce cognitive load during

retrieval, making it easier to access previously learned material (Hintzman, 1976). Repetition spaced
 8
Recall under interference task

over time is especially effective, as it combats the forgetting curve by reactivating memory traces

periodically (Cepeda et al., 2006).

By removing the repetitive and familiar numbers, the hypothesis was supported and proven

( See table III).

These results highlight the influence of associative memory and pattern recognition on recall

performance, underscoring the complex interplay between cognitive processes and interference effects.

Future research could explore strategies to minimize such biases, further contributing to our

understanding of interference in memory recall and its practical implication.

 9
Recall under interference task

Reference

Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2013). Understanding working memory: A classroom guide. SAGE

Publications.

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory theories and applications. Retrieved from

[Link]

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–

89.

Brown, L., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Working memory and language processing: Evidence from event-

related potentials. In Proceedings of the Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 126-

131). Cognitive Science Society.

Center for Neuroscience. (n.d.). Working memory: Mechanisms and capacity. Retrieved from

[Link]

CogniFit. (2023). Working memory: What it is, types, and exercises to improve it. Retrieved from

[Link]

Conway, A. R. A. (2021). Working memory capacity and cognitive performance. Retrieved from

[Link]

Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (Eds.). (2007). Variation in working

memory. Oxford University Press.

 10
Recall under interference task

Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Essays in Cognitive Psychology. Psychology Press.

Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.

Cowan, N., & Morey, C. C. (2006). Working memory capacity: A cognitive basis for measuring

intelligence. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Memory (pp. 44-50). Psychology

Press.

Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2015). Cognitive psychology: A student's handbook (7th ed.).

Psychology Press.

Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for teachers.

SAGE Publications.

Gupta, P., & Tisdale, J. (2009). The role of phonological memory in word learning: A computational

approach. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.

230-235). Cognitive Science Society.

Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view.

Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 193–225.

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided

attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 336–358.

Khan Academy. (n.d.). Introduction to memory and the brain. Retrieved from

[Link]

Logie, R. H. (1995). Visuo-spatial working memory. Essays in Cognitive Psychology. Psychology Press.
 11
Recall under interference task

Logie, R. H. (1995). Visuo-spatial working memory. Psychology Press.

Logie, R. H., & Della Sala, S. (2003). Cognitive training and working memory: Principles and applications.

In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Working Memory and Cognitive Training (pp.

78-85). Springer.

McLeod, S. (2012). Working memory. Retrieved from [Link]

[Link]

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for

processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance

and executive control. Cambridge University Press.

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance

and executive control. Cambridge University Press.

Oberauer, K., & Hein, L. (2012). Task-switching and working memory updating: Two facets of executive

control. In Proceedings of the European Cognitive Science Conference (pp. 112-118). Oxford

University Press.

Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2006). A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of

Memory and Language, 55(4), 601–626.

Repovš, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multicomponent model of working memory: Explorations in

cognitive neuroscience. Routledge.

Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology,

33(1), 5–42.
 12
Recall under interference task

Smith, E. E., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). Cognitive psychology: Mind and brain. Pearson Education.

Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and retrieval: A

cue-dependent search approach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(6), 572–590.