Interference Features of Auditory Memorization in Traumatic Experiences (for Example, Amputation of Lower Limbs)

The article presents an analysis of the results of a study of the interference of auditory memorization in traumatic experience (traumatic and non-traumatic amputation of the lower limbs). The effectiveness of processes of auditory and visual memorization in conditions of interference was analyzed. As a result of the study, the effectiveness of the process of memorizing auditory and visual information in the conditions of interference was reduced. It is definitely established that the effectiveness of the memorization process with amputation of the lower extremities is influenced by the semantic content of the interfering information. The cause of amputation (trauma or complication of prolonged chronic somatic disease) does not affect the processes of auditory and visual memory in conditions of interfering effects.

1. Ershova I.B., et al. Fantomno-bolevoj sindrom – real'naja problema, stojashhaja pered chelovekom s amputirovannoj konechnost'ju [Phantom-pain syndrome is a real problem facing a person with an amputated limb]. Tavricheskij mediko-biologicheskij vestnik [Taurian Medical and Biological Bulletin], 2012, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 97–99
2. Ishinova V.A., Povorinskij A.A., Mitjakova O.N. Izmenenie porogov taktil'noj chuvstvitel'nosti pri fantomnoj boli u pacientov, perenesshih amputaciju nizhnih konechnostej [Change in thresholds of tactile sensitivity in phantom pain in patients undergoing amputation of lower limbs]. Rossijskij zhurnal boli [Russian Journal of Pain], 2014, vol. 42, no. 1, p. 77.
3. Lurija A.R. Nejropsihologija pamjati. Narushenija pamjati pri glubinnyh porazhenijah mozga. T.2. [Neuropsychology of memory. Memory disorders in deep brain lesions. Vol. 2] Moscow: Pedagogika, 1976. 192 p. (In Russ)
4. Lurija A.R. Nejropsihologija pamjati. Narushenija pamjati pri lokal'nyh porazhenijah mozga. T.1. [Neuropsychology of memory. Memory disorders in deep brain lesions. Vol. 1] Moscow: Pedagogika, 1974. 310 p. (In Russ)
5. Popova G.V. Korrekcija statokineticheskoj ustojchivosti lic, perenesshih amputaciju nizhnih konechnostej, na jetape protezirovanija [Correction of statokinetic resistance of persons who underwent amputation of lower extremities at the stage of prosthetics]. Vestnik sportivnoj nauki [Herald of Sports Science], 2014, no. 6, pp. 42–45.
6. Rukina N.N., Belova A.N., Kuznecov A.N., Borzikov V.V. Vlijanie tempa na biomehanicheskie parametry hod'by zdorovyh i pacientov s raznym urovnem amputacii nizhnej konechnosti [The influence of the rate on the biomechanical parameters of walking of healthy and patients with different levels of amputation of the lower limb]. Rossijskij zhurnal biomehaniki [Russian Journal of Biomechanics], 2016, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 58–69.
7. Skljarenko R.T., Dotduev S.H., Spiridonova V.S. Vozmozhnosti reintegracii v normal'nuju zhizn' bol'nyh s amputaciej nizhnih konechnostej pri ateroskleroze [Possibilities for reintegration into the normal life of patients with amputation of lower limbs in atherosclerosis]. Mediko-social'naja jekspertiza i reabilitacija [Medico-social Examination and Rehabilitation], 2014, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 47–48.
8. Sozinov A. A., Laukka S., Averkin R. G., Aleksandrov Ju. I. Uslovija i mozgovoe obespechenie interferencii pri formirovanii sistemnoj struktury individual'nogo opyta [Conditions and brain support of interference in the formation of the system structure of individual experience]. In A.L. Zhuravlev, V.A. Kol'cova (eds.) Tendencii razvitija sovremennoj psihologicheskoj nauki. Ch. 2 [Trends in the development of modern psychological science. P. 2]. Moscow: publ. of Institut psihologii RAN, 2007, pp. 343–346.
9. Sozinov A.A., Krylov A.K., Aleksandrov Ju.I. Jeffekt interferencii v izuchenii psihologicheskih struktur [The effect of interference in the study of psychological structures]. Jeksperimental'naja psihologija [Experimental Psychology], 2013, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 5–47.
10. Tarabrina N.V., et al. Praktikum po psihologii posttravmaticheskogo stressa [Workshop on the psychology of post-traumatic stress]. Saint-Petersburg: Piter, 2001,
    268 p.
11. Dahlöf B. Cardiovascular disease risk factors: epidemiology and risk assessment. American Journal of Cardiology, 2010, vol. 105, no. 11, pp. 3A–9A.
12. Jivegard L.E. The development of a VBHOM-based outcome model for lower limb amputation performed for critical ischemia. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg, 2009, vol. 37, no. 1, p. 67.
13. Koen J.D., Rugg M.D. Memory Reactivation Predicts Resistance to Retroactive Interference: Evidence from Multivariate Classification and Pattern Similarity Analyses. The Journal of neuroscience, 2016, vol. 36, no 15, pp. 4389–4399. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4099-15.2016.
14. Nee D.E., Jonides J., Berman M.G. Neural mechanisms of proactive interference-resolution. NeuroImage, 2007, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 740–751.
15. Nussenbaum K, Amso D, Markant J. When increasing distraction helps learning: Distractor number and content interact in their effects on memory. Atten Percept Psychophys, 2017, vol. 79, no. 8, pp 2606–2619. doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1399-1.
16. Seibold M., Rasch B., Born J., Diekelmann S. Reactivation of interference during sleep does not impair ongoing memory consolidation. Memory, 2017, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 377–384.  doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1329442.
17. Solesio E., et al. Retroactive interference in normal aging: A magnetoencephalography study. Neuroscience Letters 456, 2009, pp. 85–88.
18. Still A.W. Proactive interference and spontaneous alternation in rats. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 339–345.
19. Stramaccia D.F., Penolazzi B., Altoè G., Galfano G.TDCS over the right inferior frontal gyrus disrupts control of interference in memory: A retrieval-induced forgetting study. Neurobiol Learn Mem, 2017, no. 144, pp. 114–130. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2017.07.005. Epub 2017 Jul 11.
20. Wohldmann E.L., Healy A.F., Bourne J. A mental practice superiority effect: Less retroactive interference and more transfer than physical practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2008, vol 34, pp. 823–833.