<p><strong>Retroactive Interference</strong></p>
<p>The scenario of thinking of the numbers 6 and 7 in an attempt to retain a string of digits and mistakenly retrieving the last two numbers as 6 and 7 during recall would be best described as retroactive interference, which is when earlier pieces of information held in working or short-term memory – which in this case would be the last two original digits 2 and 3 –  are replaced with newer information (in this case, 6 and 7). While the term retroactive interference may seem to indicate that the last digits should have been the ones most easily recalled (i.e., most recent), the fact that 6 and 7 were being rehearsed makes them the most recent information and the most likely items to be accurately retrieved. As such, focusing on these specific numbers allowed for better encoding, storage, and accurate recall. Further, as 6 and 7 appeared at the beginning of the list, this would indicate that a primacy effect had occurred as the first digits in the serial list were encoded as opposed to the last digits – which would have indicated a recency effect – or the middle chunk.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-12T01:20:28.077Z
2024-03-12T01:20:28.077Z
Kallie Shaffett
<p>Is there a word for when thinking of other numbers interferes with working memory retention? So suppose you take the digit span test and it's 6178423 and you go to type out 61784 and then forget 23 because you have thought 6 and 7 and go with 6178467. So when completing an e.g. an IQ test your thinking slips to the wrong parts. I don't think it's just focus.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-01T09:05:04.207Z
How is this different from just making an error...?
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-01T10:44:55.327Z
yeah i dunno @ArnonWeinberg but it seems like a specific type of error, one which need not necessarily involve a failure of span rather than retention and production. digit span does look quite a brute process
luke
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-02T14:20:38.423Z
The notion of "task sets" in cognitive science comes to mind. In which studies show that when task sets overlap in nature (e.g., writing numbers and recall numbers both involve numbers), they are more likely to cause conflicts. But doubt you'll find an exact word. Why do you need one?
Steven Jeuris
<working-memory>
Is there a word for when thinking of other numbers interferes with working memory retention?
luke
# Is there a word for when thinking of other numbers interferes with working memory retention?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-03-01)

Is there a word for when thinking of other numbers interferes with working memory retention? So suppose you take the digit span test and it's 6178423 and you go to type out 61784 and then forget 23 because you have thought 6 and 7 and go with 6178467. So when completing an e.g. an IQ test your thinking slips to the wrong parts. I don't think it's just focus.

**Tags:** working-memory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: How is this different from just making an error...?  
> **username_0**: yeah i dunno @ArnonWeinberg but it seems like a specific type of error, one which need not necessarily involve a failure of span rather than retention and production. digit span does look quite a brute process  
> **username_2**: The notion of "task sets" in cognitive science comes to mind. In which studies show that when task sets overlap in nature (e.g., writing numbers and recall numbers both involve numbers), they are more likely to cause conflicts. But doubt you'll find an exact word. Why do you need one?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-03-12. Score: 0

**Retroactive Interference**

The scenario of thinking of the numbers 6 and 7 in an attempt to retain a string of digits and mistakenly retrieving the last two numbers as 6 and 7 during recall would be best described as retroactive interference, which is when earlier pieces of information held in working or short-term memory – which in this case would be the last two original digits 2 and 3 – are replaced with newer information (in this case, 6 and 7). While the term retroactive interference may seem to indicate that the last digits should have been the ones most easily recalled (i.e., most recent), the fact that 6 and 7 were being rehearsed makes them the most recent information and the most likely items to be accurately retrieved. As such, focusing on these specific numbers allowed for better encoding, storage, and accurate recall. Further, as 6 and 7 appeared at the beginning of the list, this would indicate that a primacy effect had occurred as the first digits in the serial list were encoded as opposed to the last digits – which would have indicated a recency effect – or the middle chunk.


---

