Abstract
To explain the called pro active and retroactive inhibitions, there can be historically three main possible principles. The first is the theory of perseveration to explain the retroactives mentioned by G. E. Muiler and A. Pilzecker. The second is the transfer theory which prevails now in U. S. A. The last IS set forth by W. Kohler and K. Koffka. We want to name it as the “trace field theory.”
The perseveration theory says as follows: inhibitions of original activity functions in a manner to ‘intensify’ the interpolated activity. The transfer theory makes the inhibition to be functions of “similarity” between the original and the interpolated learnings. The trace field theory admits the similarity to be an important factor of inhibition, but it does not say anything more, it assumes the “trace field”-the buildings of aggregation (Be reichsbildung) which occur dynamincally in this field are regarded as the important point to explain these inhibitions.
The object of our study is to show from a new point which is the most plausible of these three explanations. The inaccuracy of perseveration theory was attacked by both transfer-and. trace field theory. My object, in short, is there fore, to see which is better of transfer- and trace field theories.
I. The stimulus constellations of experiments are taken from Japanese Text p.380 Table 1. A, B, C. stand for materials of learning such as nonsense syllables, numbers, figures, etc.
If the transfer theory is better there can be seen no difference in tendency of average right revivality for items of critical series. When the trace field theory is right on the contrary, there should be seen clear tendency for first constellation. Now, the results of six experiments made under different conditions were always better favourable for the trace field theory (See p. 382 Tab. 2).
II. In the second experiments materials were two stimulus constellations from Japanese Text p.383 Tab. 3. Between S and N there are some similarity.
If the transfer theory is better, the right revival of the items of critical series should be aiways small in lst constellation. When the trace field theory is better, there can not be such revival , at all.
The results of experiment are more favourable for the trace field theory. (See p. 384 Tab. 4.)
III.By these two foregoing results we can anticipatete the validity of the trace field theory.Next experiments are the verification of this theory. The stimulus Constellations are composed of the materials the Japanese Text p. 385 Tab. 5 gives. Materially four As, the critical items, are identical in both constellations. Experimental processes: 1) Pre-experiments are done by critical series only and decide the differential relations among the right revivality of four As in both constellations. 2) As the main experiments the learning of critical-and interpolated series are imposed successively, and then the differential relations of four As in both constellations are decided.
If the trace field theory is to be adopted,the right revivaliry of four As in main experiments should be greater in the 1st constellation than in the 2nd. Because, from the view point of Gestalt theory, when the both series are learned successively each series can not be arithmetically added, but they build a new Gestalt in which these four As come to play quite a different part.
This assumption was experimentally realized. (See p. 386 Tab. 6.)
From all the above experimental investigations, then, we conclude .thhat the right principle of inhibitions is trace field theory.
Taking the trace field theory as durable, we propose here that the same field is able to provoke two phenomena, the inhibitions and the accelearations which are contrary to each other.
