Interference

Interference

An independent editorial publisher covering a single question in memory research: what happens when two memories compete for the same act of recall.

Est. 2026 · Published in English · Three plates in the current catalogue

The libraryPlates 01–03
Long-form, cited

The catalogue

Each plate pairs a written piece with a figure drawn from the experiment it describes. Figures are schematic reconstructions of published results, not reproductions of original artwork, and they are labelled as such.

Two retention curves diverging over an eight-hour interval A schematic line chart. One curve, drawn in black, declines steeply across eight hours of waking. A second curve, drawn in red and offset above it, declines far less across eight hours of sleep. interval spent asleep interval spent awake 0 h 8 h high low

Plate 01 · Retroactive interference

The case against decay

Forgetting was long described as the fading of a trace over time. A line of work running from Müller and Pilzecker in 1900 through McGeoch in 1932 argued instead that time itself does nothing — what fills the time does the work. The article covers that argument, the sleep-and-waking comparison usually cited alongside it, and the sample-size objection that comparison has never fully escaped.

Fig. 01 — schematic after Jenkins & Dallenbach (1924). Axis values are illustrative; the original reports syllables recalled from a ten-item list. Two participants.

Recall declining across three successive trials at an eighteen-second delay A schematic column chart of three trials. The first column is tall and drawn in black outline; the second is shorter; the third is shortest and filled in red, showing recall falling as earlier trials accumulate. trial 1 trial 2 trial 3 recall first list learned

Plate 02 · Proactive interference

What the first list does to the second

A short-term forgetting task published in the late 1950s appeared to show a memory trace decaying within eighteen seconds. Keppel and Underwood reexamined the same procedure and reported that the effect was largely absent on the first trial and grew as trials accumulated. The article covers the reanalysis, the release-from-interference finding that followed, and where the account remains contested.

Fig. 02 — schematic after Keppel & Underwood (1962). Column heights are illustrative. Trial 3 is drawn in register offset to mark the accumulating prior material.

A category node linked to four items, one of which is suppressed A schematic node diagram. A central category node connects by lines to four item nodes. Two practised items are filled black, one unpractised item is drawn as an open circle, and one related unpractised item is drawn in red with a broken connecting line. category practised practised unrelated related, unpractised

Plate 03 · Retrieval-induced forgetting

Recall as a cost

Anderson, Bjork and Bjork reported in 1994 that practising some items from a category made related unpractised items harder to recall later than items from categories never practised at all. The article covers the original procedure, the boundary conditions proposed since, and the replication disagreement that has followed the effect for three decades.

Fig. 03 — schematic after Anderson, Bjork & Bjork (1994). The diagram illustrates the reported pattern; it is not a model of neural structure.

Editorial standardsFour principles

How the catalogue is edited

  1. Principle 01

    Named sources, or nothing

    Every empirical claim names the researchers and the year. Where a figure is reconstructed rather than reproduced, the caption says so. Claims that cannot be attributed to a published source are left out rather than softened into vagueness.

  2. Principle 02

    Disputes are printed, not smoothed

    Several of the findings covered here are contested, and at least one has an uneven replication record. Where that is the case, the objection appears in the same passage as the finding, not in a note at the end.

  3. Principle 03

    Nothing is assumed about the reader

    This publication holds no information about who is reading and makes no inference about anyone's circumstances, health, memory, or history. Nothing on this site is written as though the reader has a particular problem, and no page addresses the reader as a person in a specific situation.

  4. Principle 04

    Description, not instruction

    The catalogue reports what researchers observed under laboratory conditions. It does not translate those observations into methods, routines, or programmes, and it does not claim that any outcome follows from reading it.

ScopeStated limits

What Interference is not

  • Not therapy, counselling, or any form of professional advice.
  • Not a diagnosis, assessment, or treatment of any condition.
  • Not personalised guidance — no page here is tailored to an individual.
  • Not a promise of any result. No outcome is claimed, implied, or measured.
  • Not a crisis or emergency service. Urgent matters belong with local emergency services.
  • Not intended for anyone under 18 years of age.

Common questionsSix answers

Questions the desk receives

What does Interference publish?
Long-form editorial articles about experimental research on memory interference — the finding that memories compete with one another during recall. Each article names its sources and includes the methodological objections raised against them.
Is there a charge to read the catalogue?
No. Every article on this site is open and requires no account, subscription, or payment.
How does the refund policy work?
Where a purchase has been made through this brand, refunds are available within 30 days of the transaction date. The full terms are set out on the refund page.
Does Interference offer consultations or coaching?
No. This publication does not offer sessions, assessments, personalised plans, or advice of any kind, and does not refer readers to practitioners.
Why are there no reviews or success stories?
Because none are collected or published. This site carries no testimonials, endorsements, case studies, or before-and-after accounts, and none will be added.
What happens to visitor data?
Analytics and advertising technologies may record aggregate traffic information. The privacy notice sets out the legal bases, retention periods, and the rights available under Brazilian and European data protection law.

CorrespondenceEmail only

Reaching the desk

Interference is operated remotely from Brazil and keeps no public office. All correspondence — editorial corrections, source queries, data requests, billing matters — goes to a single address.

support@interference.pro

Replies are sent within two business days, Monday to Friday, 09:00–18:00 (UTC−3). Messages arriving at weekends are answered the following business day.