{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035015447991761074, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013388259526261586, 'mean_word_length': 4.5227272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Three Studies of Retroactive-Inhibition during Free-Recall from a Disinhibition Perspective

The effect of a whistle (hypothesized to be disinhibiting) on retroactive-inhibition was studied in three experiments each using a 2 (whistle, no whistle) × 3 (retroactive-inhibition, unrelated list, unrelated task conditions) factorial design. In Exp. 1 an unexpected blast (whistle condition) was presented as Ss began terminal List 1 recall. In Exp. 2 the whistle was presented as Ss began the first test trial of List 2 acquisition. In Exp. 3 the whistle was presented as Ss began the third (and terminal) test trial of List 2 acquisition. The disinhibition hypothesis was not supported. The whistle impeded the organization of List 1 in Exp. 1. The whistle reduced the amount of transfer in List 2 in Exp. 2. The whistle had no effect on relatively well learned material in Exp. 3. A novel stimulus tends to disrupt labile learning. The effects are specific and transitory.