Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2025

A Lateralized Odor Learning Model in Neonatal Rats for Dissecting Neural Circuitry Underpinning Memory Formation
Published on: August 18, 2014
Effects of proactive interference on olfactory memory in dogs
Adam Davila1, Sarah Krichbaum2, Lucia Lazarowski2
1Department of Psychological Sciences, Auburn University, 226 Thach Hall, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA. aad0043@auburn.edu.
Proactive interference (PI) occurs when memories of past events or stimuli intrude in the present moment, causing working memory (WM) errors. These errors are often measured through WM tests such as matching-to-sample (MTS). When the repetition of individual stimuli increases, there is a greater chance of these intrusions, and thus there can be a decrease in accuracy in such tasks. In two experiments, we explored the nature of PI on dog working memory. First, we manipulated the size of the set of odors (2, 6, trial-unique) used to construct each session to maximize (2-odor set) and minimize (trial-unique) within-session proactive interference during an olfactory MTS task. Matching-to-sample accuracy decreased with greater PI. Second, we adapted procedures originally designed for pigeons and rhesus macaques to determine the locus of PI in dogs. To test for proactive interference, probe trials were inserted into MTS sessions where sample odors from earlier trials reappeared as incorrect comparisons. Incorrect responses on these probe trials indicated proactive interference. These probe tests were conducted with a 0-s or 20-s retention interval in separate sessions. We found that dogs performed worse on the matching task when the source of interference (odor stimulus) was from the immediately preceding trial compared with when they were from trials further back in the session but only for the 0-s retention interval. These results are compared with previous work examining the effects of proactive interference on working memory in other species.
Proactive interference (PI) occurs when memories of past events or stimuli intrude in the present moment, causing working memory (WM) errors. These errors are often measured through WM tests such as matching-to-sample (MTS). When the repetition of individual stimuli increases, there is a greater chance of these intrusions, and thus there can be a decrease in accuracy in such tasks. In two experiments, we explored the nature of PI on dog working memory. First, we manipulated the size of the set of odors (2, 6, trial-unique) used to construct each session to maximize (2-odor set) and minimize (trial-unique) within-session proactive interference during an olfactory MTS task. Matching-to-sample accuracy decreased with greater PI. Second, we adapted procedures originally designed for pigeons and rhesus macaques to determine the locus of PI in dogs. To test for proactive interference, probe trials were inserted into MTS sessions where sample odors from earlier trials reappeared as incorrect comparisons. Incorrect responses on these probe trials indicated proactive interference. These probe tests were conducted with a 0-s or 20-s retention interval in separate sessions. We found that dogs performed worse on the matching task when the source of interference (odor stimulus) was from the immediately preceding trial compared with when they were from trials further back in the session but only for the 0-s retention interval. These results are compared with previous work examining the effects of proactive interference on working memory in other species.
Related Concept Videos
Olfaction
The olfactory receptors are embedded in the cilia of the...
Interference and Decay
Interference occurs when competing memories hinder the retrieval of particular information. It can be classified into two types: proactive and retroactive interference. Proactive...
Olfactory Receptors: Location and Structure
Physiology of Smell and Olfactory Pathway
The olfactory...
Principles of Classical Conditioning
During the...

