Talk:Memory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Memory article.
Article policies
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
To-do list for Memory: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: There are currently no footnotes in the article at all, this needs much work
  • Cleanup: See also section is very long - a memory related subjects template may be better
  • Expand:
    • Memory techniques (this is going to Memory technique as i've got a lot of info on it) (e.g. remembering binary numbers, association with other senses), memory enhancing products (books, tapes etc)
    • Competitions and famous individuals, extraordinary feats
    • Biological and neurological definitions of memory to go to Memory (neurological).
    • Memory in animals
    • Rates of memory loss (a graph would be good for this)
    • The effect of literacy on memory, limitations of memory
    • Expand disorders section e.g. effects of drugs, more on aging and Alzheimer's, other disorders
    • Selective memory (the disorder, the deceptive form, and the subconscious form).
Priority 1 (top) 

Contents

[edit] Musical Memory removed

I removed the useless, one sentence "Musical Memory" subsection of Classification. If anyone wants it back, I highly suggest you expand it. Cheers! Juru (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children

This article says nothing and has no links to things about memory in children. Specifically I'm looking for the age children first start forming long term memories.

In a recent review, Schacter et al. mention that episodic remembering emerges around age 3-5. I assume it is episodic memory you refer to when you say long-term memories, however procedural, sensory, and semantic memories are also long-term. I don't know of ages for those, offhand, though sensory memory clearly starts early, even before birth. digfarenough (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional info

Shouldn't people talk about EPSP's and IPSP's in this article too?

Answer: In what context should they be mentioned? EPSPs and IPSPs aren't strictly related to memory. It is most probable that brain functions of memory involve EPSPs and IPSPs, but I doubt anyone can explain in detail how exactly they are involved (probably because no one knows yet).88.115.119.15 09:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photographic memory

Can someone add text regarding what's called a "photographic memory" ? Bevo 23:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think that the term "Eidetic_memory" is what passes for a technical term related to "photographic memory". Some psychologists have done tests on children and found that some children seem to have very good memories for things like visual patterns. This sort of eidetic memory is rare after age 7. Before age 7, when the human brain is still growing and forming many new synaptic connections, there is a need to learn rapidly from one's social group. Studies on experimental animals have shown that mutations in certain genes like the CREB gene (CREB is mentioned here.) can result in "instant memory" formation, with out the need for repetition. I would not be surprised if some older humans still have this sort of rapid learning. For example, see Asperger's_syndrome. With modern rules for experimenting with children, there is little current research on this topic. JWSchmidt 00:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New Article:

I have aspergers and have nothing of the sort. Aspbergers is a symptom that is almost like ADD or ADHD but slightly differential symptoms. Aspbergers is a disorder that borders obsessive compulsive disorder. A person with aspbergers becomes focused on a hobby and can't stop until another interest comes along. User: Anonymous. Oct. 1, 2004.

About the physiology of memory: I think article doesn't make clear enough how little the physical mechanisms of memory are understood. Maybe should mention that information could also be stored in surface area of glial cells, numbers and types of ion channels, amount of myelination? -cypherx

I just read that section, and, at least to a scientist (ie, me), it seems plenty clear enough that it's poorly understood. There's a lot of the use of "believed" and "attributed", both of which make it reasonably clear that the answer's not well known.--Limegreen 04:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A property of the human mind ?

Other animals (all of them, would I say) obviously have a memory. I've replaced it with "a function of the brain" (since mind may not apply to all animals, while memory does -- in my opinion). Some parts of the article seem to be specific to humans though, feel free to revert, change, etc. if you aren't pleased with my edit. → SeeSchloß 16:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good call. There's probably a need for a section on memory in non-human animals. Some experts (e.g., Tulving) are very clear that some types of memory, such as episodic (autobiographical) memory, are only found in humans. There's some quite nice work by Nicola Clayton [1] that suggests that animals may in fact be capable of, at the very least, episodic-like memory. It's not really my area, but I do some research in memory, and this article could contain much much more information in all sorts of ways. However, memory is such a work-in-progress on many levels, that it would be quite easy to digress beyond what wikipedia probably needs... Limegreen 05:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] These are not commercial links

These are not commercial links

And it would be a bit of a double standard because if you look at the NIH link it contains commercial product data on drugs leads has advertising for medical professionals http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/directories.html

And an insurance company

InteliHealth Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna Inc., a leading provider of health, dental, group life, disability and long term care benefits to more than 30 million Americans. Aetna InteliHealth's mission is to empower people with trusted solutions for healthier lives through its exclusive relationships with Harvard Medical School.

Through Aetna InteliHealth, Aetna seeks to educate the public with trusted health information so that health consumers, in partnership with their health care professionals, take an active role in health care decisions.


To learn more about Aetna Inc. go to www.aetna.com.

  • Sorry, but its a "dot com" with "Products | Pricing | How To Order | Product Specification" on the pages. --JWSchmidt 05:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few key missing points?

  1. I would have assumed that in the decription of short term memory to long term memory someone would have included the theory of electrical to chemical conversions.
  2. There is no metion of the effects of memory on the cutting of the corpus constellium, or the location of type of memory? ( These are both controversal)
  3. Offactory memory?

[[2]]

Ill be bek 69.181.232.116 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Suggest Adding Info on Estimated Human Memory Capacity

A very common question is "what's the storage capacity of human memory ?". Until very recently this was essentially unknown, because the actual physical mechanism underlying memory was unknown.

However a recent reseach paper now estimates human memory capacity at 10^8432 bits, which is astronomical: Joema 19:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Discovering The Capacity Of Human Memory, Y. Wang, et al, Brain and Mind, Aug. 2003

[3]

[edit] Memory, Working Memory, and Information Processing (Relative) Speeds

Dear all, does anyone has some information about the relative speeds of the Working Memory (and its components) with respect to the speed of information processing, such as visual processing? I am in particular curious about the speed of Palmer's Category-based stage in visual processing vs. the speed of cognitive processes after the visual information is received by these processes. Thank you in advance. --Triskell 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recall/Reconstruction

some leadinf memory research, and some aritcles on this very site state, suggest that memory is in fact recontruction, not recall. someone might want to look into that and edit the recall statements. if no one does ill do it myself. Lue3378 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cueflash

I put in this link: http://www.cueflash.com

It doesn't have any items for sale.

[edit] Role of the Medulla in Salamanders?

I think I read somewhere a study some guy did wherein he transplanted tadpole medullas into salamanders' brains and showed that the medulla was apparently where memory was stored. Should this be mentioned? --aciel 05:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add Internet Polyglot to external links

Hello,

Please consider adding site [ http://www.InternetPolyglot.com ] in the section of external links. This site is dedicated to memorization of foreign words as well as terms and definitions by the means of repetitive study. It also has a community of language learners. Access to all pages is free.

{13 Mar 06} Since there has been no objections I am adding [ http://www.InternetPolyglot.com ] in the list of external links.

Baleeting obvious advertisement. Cheers! Juru (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
...or not... it's already gone... Juru (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why links are beeing removed

why links containing adsense code are being removed , while other link containing also adsense code but for big companies like (newspaper online) are beeing kept ?

Memories

[edit] Merge of Retrospective memory

I think Retrospective memory could be merged into this article. --Dangherous 08:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. That is a possibility, as in some respects retrospective memory exists as a label to serve as a corollary to prospective memory. Prospective memory is a category with perhaps 2 constituent memory constructs (time-based and event-based prospective memory), and pretty much every other type of memory is lumped into the retrospective category. If I get a chance, I'll have a bit more of a think about this, but at the moment it seems the retrospective page is only ever likely to be a dictionary-style entry, not an encyclopaedic one. --Limegreen 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
A google search [4] reinforces this, with (apart from the wikipedia entry) retrospective memory almost always turning up as a counterpoint to prospective memory. --Limegreen 11:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link removals

Is there a reason links to mnemonic resources have been removed?

[edit] Physiology comments

Is there anything to back up this statement: "Other scientists who have investigated the nature of memory, namley neurologists John Carew Eccles and Wilder Penfield and biologist Rupert Sheldrake, have suggested that memories are a field phenomenon and are not stored in the brain at all, but rather accessed through neurological structures." It's a fairly general statement -- for example, the neuron is a neurological structure, but it is also part of the brain (which consists of many, many neurons). Is the statement here implying that memories may exist outside of neurons/the brain? Or that they do exist in the brain/neurons? If the former, there's nothing to back it up(the work of the mentioned scientists shows nothing of the sort). If the latter, it's quite redundant.

The statement "that memories are a field phenomenon and are not stored in the brain at all" is just mysterious and does not fit this short physiology text. Furthermore this theory does not influence memory research. A search at pubmed (indexing articles of all medical research) with the words "memory physiology Eccles Penfield" generates no results at all while a search for just "memory physiology" results in 59327 hits.

Further critisism of the Eccles/ Penfield part that has resurfaced in this wiki-article: Physiology is defined as "the study of the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of living organisms." see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology . The Eccles/Penfield theory as described here is suggesting that memories are not mechanical, physical, or biochemical. Thus this theory does not belong under the physiology header. The analouge with drops running on a side of a book, that seemingly was added as an explanation makes another interpretation likely, that the writer simply mean that memories encoded in a distributed fashion in the brain. Then it is the formulation "not stored in the brain at all" that is wrong and based on a misunderstanding.

I know this is an old section, but I wanted to throw in an explanation. Hebb (1949) discusses the field theories a little bit as a way to contrast his old ideas. Field theories really were an old idea that had a bit of traction (I've never read Eccles, but I know he was around at the right time). The idea still exists in the form of ephaptic interactions (no wikipedia page on it, but pubmed or other search engines should bring up results). The idea is that the calculations performed by the brain are not via synaptic mechanisms (or at least not entirely), but are due to interactions between neurons via electromagnetic fields. There is indeed evidence for this ephaptic influence (I don't have it at hand but can provide it if requested), but it is not known how much influence on general processing it has and whether it is signal or noise. It's true that most modern theories don't pay much attention to it, but the idea has not completely disappeared. It is not a mystical theory as described above. This neither confirms nor denies the originally questioned claim--it is just meant to describe what the theories actually are so it is known they are not metaphysical theories. digfarenough (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What about electronic memory (RAM,...) ?

[edit] RAM

Wouldn't electronic memory be seperate? But I suppose there is a discussion there...--Tapsell 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information Processing

Why does this article assume that the 'information processing' view of cognition (and, therefore memory) is correct, in the face of much evidence to the contrary (cf Cognitivism (psychology), John Searle, J.J. Gibson, post-cognitivism)? Shouldn't other views be considered? User:BScotland

[edit] Personal vs Impersonal

Rewrote the first line: Memory is the ability of an organism to store, retain, and subsequently recall information. It looks like a definition but I have a few doubts.

It is a definition... One that is pretty standard in most introductory Cognitive Psychology textbooks. For example, the textbook I have used to teach cognitive neuroscience (Cognitive Neuroscience by Gazzaniga, Ivry and Mangun, 2002) defines memory quite similarly to the definition used here. Other textbooks, like Solso Cognitive Psychology (6th ed. 2001) break memory into exactly these stages and processes, although he avoids a single-sentence definition like the one here, and prefers to explain each component with examples. For the answers to your other questions, see below.

Could you say that information is stored, if it cannot be recalled? What is the important difference between storing and retaining? Admittedly, any recorder or recording stores (or retains?) but what is recalling? And also why consider only organisms. It is not obvious that computer memory is a catachresis.al 11:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Within standard cognitive psychology, there is a clear distinction between explicit and implicit memory. In explicit memory, one is able to consciously recall and report the information that was encoded into memory. However, it is also possible to show that information was implicitly (i.e., non-consciously) stored in memory. For example, if I were to show someone a list of word stems (i.e., two or three letters, followed by three blanks which the participant has to fill in), they might not remember the words (for example, if they were to be masked) but they would be more likely to complete the stems with words from the list than they would havee been if the words had not been presented. This is a form of implicit memory, in which we can demonstrate that the information was encoded, and even stored but could not be recalled. Despite the fact that the information could not be retrieved it can be shown that the memory is in some way retained. In this context, recall refers to the ability to explicitly report the information, and is often contrasted with recognition in which we simply recognize something as familiar, even if we cannot explicitly recall it.
As for computer memory, although cognitive psychology and especially cognitive science are largely founded on the analogy with the computer, computer memory operates via different principles, and therefore should only be treated in later sections of the article, where more room can be dedicated to the analogies and disanologies between human and computer memory systems. Edhubbard 12:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia user I assume that a definition is general. It is not obvious that the article about memory (without qualifications) is written from the particular perspective of cognitive neuroscience, as the quoted textbook definitions confirm it to be.
There is an ambiguity in the qualifying 'of an organism'; from my personal perspective I take it to be a generalization, while in fact it is a restriction. (The rewrite attempted to make this more apparent.)
I would have assumed that the second and third sentences of the lead that you changed would have made this pretty clear, as they state "Although traditional studies of memory began in the realms of philosophy, the late nineteenth and early twentieth century put memory within the paradigms of cognitive psychology. In the recent decades, it has become one of the principal pillars of a new branch of science that represents a marriage between cognitive psychology and neuroscience, called cognitive neuroscience." This clearly says nothing about computers, or other such things, and there is a pretty clear disambiguation link just above this... Edhubbard 12:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If all other uses of 'memory' are not just metaphorical, perhaps it would be better to have the query Memory directed straight to the disambiguation page.al 12:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, given that, historically, 'memory' referred to human and other animals' ability to remember things long before computers were even invented, it has to be understood that the usage of memory to apply to computer memory must be a metaphorical extension of the first sense of memory. I don't see any reason for the query to go straight to the disambiguation page, but if you feel strongly about it, we could see what other people think. Edhubbard 12:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As I see it: either a qualification appears in the title
or the query is directed to the disambiguation page.
In fact this has been done in French where asking for Memoire sends you to Memoire(sciences humaines); of course the link to disambiguation comes after that and before you have started reading further.
Btw meaning fuctions in synchronicity, so history cannot be the ultimate authority; according to the wiktionary computers do have memory.

Let's see what other people think.al 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the first entry should be the most common, and likely usage of the term. If history is not considered an acceptable guide, how about the order of entries in a dictionary (taking the first five I come across in a google search) [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. And the wiktionary entry: [10]. Except for the one entry that restricts itself to only computer memory, all other entries place the human capacity to record information first. That is, if we let common usage be our guide this usage of memory is the most common and explicitly primary meaning of term.

There is also an important dissimilarity between English and French. In English, the additional uses of memory are metaphorical extensions, or derivative on the primary sense of memory (i.e., the human capacity) whereas in French, the word mémoire is actively polysemous: That is, it has multiple meanings, that are not necessarily just metaphorical extensions. Viz. the disambiguation page in French "Un mémoire est un exposé scientifique ou littéraire réalisé par un étudiant en fin de cycle universitaire (Belgique, Canada) pour l'obtention de son diplôme." which is perfectly acceptable in French is non-sense in English "A memory is a literary or scientific expose created by a student at the end of the university cycle (Belgium, Canada) in order to obtain his or her diploma." (my translation). However, if we were to replace memory in this case with the standard English terms of thesis or dissertation the sentence makes perfect sense. But I agree, let's see what other editors think. Edhubbard 16:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why reinforce memory

I admit that the in's and out's of the memory is not that well known to me, but at this current time i am doing a project on my Graphic Communications course based on tattoos.It would help and interest me to know why do people reinfocre remembering people/events through tattoos, or even by having pictures of family members on the desk at work?do we not remember these things anyway, without having to constantly see these images day in day out. If anyone could help me on this subject it would be greatly appriciated. Lil-Halo 12:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note, that this section or function of Wikipedia isn't meant for discussion on the subject, but discussion on how to better the article. 88.115.119.15 09:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum that is not true"

The references section has the above. It doesn't make much sense to me, so I wonder if it's some wayward comment that shouldn't be there. Can someone clarify? Thanks. --82.148.37.15 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism that has somehow gone under the radar for a few weeks, removed it today. If something looks out of place, it can be a good idea to look back through the history to check if it has always been like that. 02:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conscious and Unconscious Memory

This is an important distinction, since it is the reason we can find the bathroom when we first wake up. And in the Heading “Classification”, it is the reason that we can have understanding of “letters” like “a” or “f”. There is something to note in that the arrangement of the letters “A CAT” have more meaning, and therefore a better chance of memory, than “FB IPH”. I can even remember that “a” is like “an apple on a tree” but I forget the cue to remembering “b” but I still have use of "b".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.32.87.250 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 January 2007.

The distinction between conscious and unconscious memory is largely contained in the explicit vs. implicit or declarative versus procedural memory in Classification by information type. --Limegreen 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memory in conjunction with Pain and Fear

The brain uses memories of these to avoid danger and pain in the present. It is the very reason that we don’t kill ourselves getting to the bathroom first thing after waking up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.32.87.250 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 January 2007.

See operant conditioning. --Limegreen 23:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] too many links?

I can't see the page, it's all links to example.com. I can only see the text if I go to the edit page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.111.113 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Addition of new information is more weasely than ever. Information is inaccurate, and includes poor stipulations based on 1960's research.

The new paragraphs that have been added are extremely weasel-like. Saying that "many people have said" or that "it is thought that" without referencing who makes us neuroscientists quite skeptical.

It's likely that sleep reduces the amount of visual and other processing; i.e work done by your neurons, so it's unlikely that it's working to "help memory", but rather it is "stopping things from interfering with it". I'm going to place a request here to refrain from adding neuroscience-based information relating to memory in the brain until myself, or someone uses a neurophysiological book on memory, and not a psychological textbook for A-level students. J O R D A N [talk ] 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badly outdated and overly simplistic treatment

This article needs to be significantly revised by several experts in the area. At a minimum there should be a group of experts on human memory and on animal memory/learning, including experts on psychological, neuroscientific, and computational approaches. Within the human domain, there needs to be an updated treatment of episodic memory (esp. recall and recognition), models of memory, decision processes in memory (including signal detection theory, accumulator models, and their variants), priming / implicit memory, metamemory, functional MRI and PET studies of memory, EEG/MEG/TMS studies, patient lesion studies, and neuronal recording studies. There needs to be an updated discussion of memory in infancy and in old age, or visual and auditory sensory memory, and of spatial memory. Some discussion of mnemonics and individuals with extraordinary memory is also needed. The current description is similar to the treatment one would find in an introductory psychology textbook from the 70s or 80s, along with various minor updates in specific areas.

The classic reference on human memory is still Crowder's (1976) monograph, which is still an excellent source despite being 30 years old. More up to date treatments can be found in the Oxford Handbook of Memory (2000).

For the work involved in correcting the errors in this article, it would make more sense to rewrite it from scratch.

--Mkahana 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you are one of the experts that can contribute to this article. You're very welcome to remove some of the worst errors, or rewrite it from scratch! Lova Falk 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why couldnt scientist to creat virtual snail brain?

Snail brain consist with only 20000 neurons! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.190.46.52 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Why link to the article about how memory works is removed?

Is there a reason for that? The article is fully about human memory mechanisms and I don't see any reasons for it to be removed. Comments?

Andrew joker, please next time sign your comments. At the same time you wrote this question, I wrote my comment on your link below. The answer to your question is that is a commercial link. The article starts with: "This article is an introduction to the “Giordano Memorization System®’” (GMS®) memory model." This is not a reliable and NPOV source of information, this is a company who wants to sell. Lova Falk 17:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be a reason. This page is about memory (wikipedia), and this article explains how memory works using GMS Model. They don't sell GMS model it is fully available free of charge here: http://www.pmemory.com/memory_book.html This article provides unique information about Human Memory and as I said this page (wikipedia) IS about Memory. The website is commercial but they are selling the course on memory improvement and it has nothing to do with article about Memory or with this subject. We can use their article. ~~Andrew

I checked it out and downloaded their free of charge book. At the end it says: "If you have studied the material in this book closely enough, you can become a student of our school. The Remote Training Study Course consists of five different but interconnected courses and exercises..." They tell about the courses and then there is a link to http://www.pmemory.com/memory_training_online.html. There they write: "Giordano Memorizing System course via e-mail. The length of the study course is 5 months. The total price of the full course is $299."
I'm sorry Andrew, but this is a commercial website. The "School of Phenomenal Memory" has their own ideas about memory training, which means that they are biased. There is no consensus that what they are saying is correct. So I will remove your link again. Lova Falk 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about their course and who cares about it anyway. I am talking about memory model. I have not posted any link s to their course and/or to their manual. The link is about article about how memory works and as I see this page is about memory. In wikipedia we don't have any legitimate explanations how memory works and this article covers this and again, it has nothing to do with their courses. It is about information in the article. Andrew jokerAndrew
I question the utility of linking to a site that repeatedly claims it is different than "traditional psychology". I'm not sure what basis there is for a claim that this site offers a legitimate explanation for how memory works. It appears, instead, to offer a theory of how memory works and provides no support for the theory. I support the removal of the link because there must be better pages out there than that one to link to. Ones, perhaps, that actually offer support for their claims. digfarenough (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial link

The link to www.pmemory.com is a commercial link, and clearly belongs to Links normally to be avoided, especially point 4. Many people so far have removed this link, and I will do so shortly, but it keeps coming back. Please refrain from putting it back there. Wikipedia is not the correct place for advertisments. If you don't agree with me, please state your arguments so we can discuss it. Lova Falk 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episodic memory

"evidence shows us capable of remembering things without rehearsal." I added a required citation tag (later removed by another user) to this, because the article episodic memory does not say anything about it being unrehearsed. In fact I have not come across any evidence that memories can be held for a long period of time without being rehearsed (even if unconsciously). I do not claim to be an expert on the subject; if anyone has any evidence for the above I would be grateful if they would provide it. However, I think it is fair to expect a citation for this claim. Robin S 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right that we should have a reference for the claim (I was the one who removed it). I suppose the episodic memory article should mention this, but by definition episodic memory is a one-shot memory. You only experience an episode once, yet are able to remember it. For instance, if I ask you if you saw some particular movie last week (say Spider-Man 3), you would be able to remember if you had, even if you hadn't thought about it since then. Or to take a different approach, you could consider conditioned taste aversion to be memory that does not require rehearsal, as it can occur with only one exposure and you don't have to be consciously aware of the pairing of food and illness for it to occur. If you consider the latter to be a good example, perhaps we could link to that as a temporary reference? digfarenough (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see where the problem lies. Procedural memory can literally be rehearsed, by practising the procedure in question. On the other hand, declarative memory, whilst not literally rehearsable, can be strengthened by "practising" (e.g. revising for a test, or recalling an event). This, as I understand it, has the "same" effect as practising a procedure in that it strengthens the connections between neurones and makes the memory less likely to fade. Robin S 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is true, but the claim in question was (copying from your post above): "evidence shows us capable of remembering things without rehearsal." My point was just that it isn't necessary for rehearse in at least the two examples I gave, as they are "automatic", in a sense, which isn't to say that rehearsal of an episodic memory or repeated pairings of food and illness won't increase the strength of the memory. This does suggest that we need some clarification in the article in addition to a reference for the original claim. (Of course, it is true that in many models of consolidation from episodic to declarative memory, it is assumed that memories are consolidated during sleep in what amounts to a replaying of the memory, which could be imagined as a form of rehearsal--but the original formation of the episodic memory clearly doesn't need rehearsal). digfarenough (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that it is possible to experience an event, not think about it again (even subconsciously) for a long period of time and then suddenly remember it? Robin S 03:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem implausible, but would appear to be something that is unlikely to happen frequently. Obviously, the scope of forgetting is massive, so most of the things that make a memory last are likely to make it thought about again (e.g., distinctiveness, salience etc.). On the fact of it, it also appears to be a dangerously hard thesis to provide empirical evidence for. A "long period of time" should also diminish the probability. The best argument I can think for plausibility at the moment is memory for faces. After a single interaction with a person, I would suggest it is quite common not to think about/rehearse their face for a period of time (and probably not also think about the interaction), but to recall it on re-meeting. --Limegreen 04:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
(backing up one level, to Robin S) I didn't say for "a long period of time." But there aren't a whole lot of memory systems in the brain, once it's out of working memory, if you want to recall something you're relying on episodic or semantic memory (or, of course, procedural or sensory, etc). If you put your coat in one of two closets and I ask you 10 minutes later which closet you put it in, you should be able to remember even though you haven't been rehearsing which closet you put it in. Eventually it does appear that episodic memories become inaccessible/lost, except inasmuch as they are consolidated into semantic memories. digfarenough (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent): Although this discussion is on episodic memory, I'd like to bring in data from another domain, semantic memory, which has been much more extensively studied in controlled experimental settings. In semantic memory studies during the 1960s, it was commonly assumed that rehearsal was the key to improving memory performance, and early studies of memory focused on such manipulations. However, the Levels of Processing Theory developed by Craik and Lockhart (1972) suggested that semantic elaboration, not rehearsal per se, was critical to improving memory performance. That is, the greater the semantic elaboration, the greater the memory performance, independent of rehearsal. The advantage that we see with rehearsal was argued to be a side-effect of increased opportunity for deeper processing. See for example, http://tip.psychology.org/craik.html and http://www.uark.edu/misc/lampinen/LOP.html. So, at least in the case of semantic memory, there can be dissociations between memory performance and rehearsal. As far as I know, the link between LOP and episodic memory has not been properly investigated, but it does raise the possibility that rehearsal may not be essential for episodic memory either. As an aside, memory for faces may be a special case (it seems to be essentially unlimited capacity and does not decay in the same way that semantic word memory does), and may or may not generalize to other forms of episodic memory. Edhubbard 08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly Taken From a Book...

Cues do not need to be related to the action (as the mailbox example is), and lists, sticky-notes, knotted handkerchiefs, or string around the finger (see box) are all examples of cues...

Sorry I don't know the rules but this appeared to me to have been copied directly (and not very well at that) from another text as there is no box illustrating "string around the finger..." or any other box nearby. If the box has been deliberately removed by another user then sorry. Having said this, if someone did remove said 'box' then they probably ought to have removed this text also...

Cheers,

Toby H82.46.103.143 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Toby and all, I know that there was a box with the string on a finger image, back in October, or so (I just double checked the history) but I do not know why or exactly when the image was removed. In any case, you're right that the "see box" text should have been removed when the box was removed. I don't however, think that this text was copied from someplace else. Edhubbard 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your prompt response Ed. In mentioning the innaccuracy I was only concerned that potentially copyrited material had been cut and pasted as "see box" seemed typical of school textbooks of my youth. Thanks for the explanation, and now I know how to check the history for my self. On reflection I probably ought to have figured out how to check first...
Toby H82.46.103.143 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam or Resource? Jumping to Conclusions Versus Adding Useful Content

The Following is a Copy of the Discussion regarding A Helpful Resource For This Article

There appears to be an issue with spam accusations. I've just updated two memory articles to be more accurate and included a link to a website that is the real deal resource directly related to memory. Why then is it being flagged as spam? A website that is on the exact same topic as the article should be a listed resource. I'm not aware of any unwritten formatting that may be generally expected, but this is content that is of benefit to the entire community. Talk to me. What's up with this?

Your edits are spam, they are advertisements for a book to help you improve memory. It isn't a source the way you presented it, it's a glowing review, which is not WP:NPOV and counts as spam. However, it is possible you do not understand this, so I'm not going to give you the next level warning unless you do it again. Please read WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV and WP:V for a better undestanding of this and how to cite sources. Thank you. Gscshoyru 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You are ignorant. This is a fact. You are inattentive. This too is a fact. You have no control over your emotions. This too you will most likely prove to be a fact. You are quick to label a resource as "spam" without examining it as necessary. What you label a "glowing review" is merely fact. If I am being blunt, it is only to be clear. You choose not to edit posts. You choose to eliminate them entirely. Is that what wikipedia is all about? A limitation of who contributes? If you so believe me to be mistaken as to the exact verbiage I use to depict the facts about memory, I invite you to examine the details as thoroughly as you know how and then find someone to tell you where you missed a spot, check again, and then if you still believe that it is in fact spam, then please, don't hesitate to remove it. Until then however, I suggest you get your facts straight, being how you struggle to comprehend, let alone be capable of spelling a word as simple as understanding.--Mark9946 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A review, by definition, is an opinion. Not a fact. You are advertising this book, and such a thing has no place in an encyclopedia. You're not presenting facts about memory. You're presenting your ideas about the content of the book. Such a thing is in fact spam.
And if you think a single spelling mistake is bad... well... see some of the other vandalism on my talk page. c 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
After having thoroughly reviewed the resources you mentioned, your words are rather shallow. You are incapable of realizing the meaning of how this website operates, and in your infinite intelligent thinking ability, or rather, the lack thereof, you have robbed the community of valuable information that otherwise they would not know about. You follow the path of ignorance, and you are exactly the type of person who spends on this world, but never gives. If you truly valued the people who read information on this website, you would first consider the quality of information, and only after thoroughly thinking that through would you consider you next move in editing content. Your current actions are a disservice. I can only hope that you understand even a fraction of what I just said.--Mark9946 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Suppressing the truth on the premise of your own lack of understanding does nobody any good--Mark9946 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to say I fully agree with Gscshoyru. The link is an ad and should not be included in a Wikipedia article. Lova Falk 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I too agree that the link should not be included in this article. And Mark9946, please try to refrain from personal attack. If you believe the link does indeed belong on this page, please present the reasons. The only reason you have provided here is that it is the "real deal resource" and that it is on the "exact same topic as the article". However, the page linked to does not provide a clear resource (except a book that is for sale, and judging by your actions, probably written by you). Apart from the fact that the page itself is like many others trying to sell a product, the few claims it does make do not seem to be accurate (e.g. the page says that someone remembering and typing out a 16 word sentence demonstrates that the 7+-2 capacity of short-term memory is in fact wrong; this is a misunderstanding as to what the 7 items refers to). This "resource" also appears to make the fundamental misconception that there is only one kind of "memory," whereas, in reality, it has been shown many times that the brain supports a number of different memory systems, for which improvement in one does not cause improvement in others. To be a valid informational resource, it seems to me that a website should be accurate in the face of the currently accepted knowledge. digfarenough (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio?

most of the "improving memory" section is just copy and pasted from the referenced url (article section was added June 1 by User:Aholladay, referenced article was apparently posted in march).. the last sentence has an added, unsubstantiated claim that the increase in synapses caused by aerobic exercise is responsible for improved memory.. probably that is indeed the case, but it needs a reference digfarenough (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added report reference

The reference report I added before in "improving memory" and which was deleted because I included a paste from a public website, I posted it now correctly. Sorry about that, I am new around and didn't know the rules too good. Profbrumby 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving memory

If getting oxygen to the brain helps memorization then would hyperventilating help it as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.204.239 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent revert

I have reverted a recent test edit. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)