ABSTRACT
Beginning in the 1920s, consolidation theory was replaced by various forms o f interference theory as the favored explanation o f retroactive inhibition. In fact, the interruption o f the neural trace has never returned as a serious explanation of this phenom enon. Part o f the reason was the developm ent o f theories that spec ified the characteristics and nature o f the interference, and paradigms and m eth odology that perm itted their direct study and m easurem ent. (See Postman, 1971, pp. 1087-1102, for a review o f this literature.) Another part o f the reason was the difficulty with which a simple consolidation theory could account for proactive inhibition-interference attributed to material learned prior to the m a terial being recalled. The theory would also have trouble explaining certain other phenom ena in the m em ory literature, for exam ple, spontaneous recovery-im provem ent in recall o f the first set o f material following the com pletion o f the interpolated activity-and the detailed effects o f memory following periods of sleeping and waking (see Ekstrand, Barrett, W est, & M aier, 1977).
