Talk:Memory/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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?

[[1]]

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

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

[2]

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)

cueflash

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

It doesn't have any items for sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobKohr~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.22.32 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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 [3] 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)

Link removals

Is there a reason links to mnemonic resources have been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.51.12 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RAM

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

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) [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. And the wiktionary entry: [9]. 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,...) ?

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)

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)

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)

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)

recent revert

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

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)

Memory improvement seems to be more about tagging the memory with a strong emotion that allows for easy retrival later. Our memory system seems to hold memories for decades but without a strong emotion attached, there is great difficulty in the retrivel of those memories. Example, I have been to Las Vegas at least ten times, yet the only time I remember well is the one time I did not rent a car and did so much walking that I got a blister. The pain seemed to make the memories of that one visit better than any other. A memory book I read years go indicated this same point when it suggested the best way to remember anything was to make it bizzarre or unusual... thus increasing its emotional tag. Most strong emotions are painful and often from fear and so many people remember most of the painful parts of their lives quite well but few of the mostly good or neutral times by comparison. In Evolutionary terms this makes a lot of sense-- remember what hurt you to avoid it, remember what fulfills survival and reproductive imperatives, the rest is optional if you have left over brain capacity. Humans have a great deal of optional space to fill, but much of it, if not used often fades to black.Jiohdi (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia use policy violation

I'm a longtime reader/user of Wikipedia; this is my first post. I recently purchased an ebook in which two appendices have been lifted verbatim from Wikipedia, one of them from this section on memory. The material was not similar in tone to the rest of the book, so I put it into a search engine and turned up the Wikipedia source. When I contacted the author, the author said it was an oversight and will now cite Wikipedia as the source, though presumably the author will continue to sell the material and put his own copyright on it.

I wanted to check with authors of this section to see 1) what action you recommend and 2) if anyone is interested in taking this up as well.

Why do I care? Because I admire Wikipedia and believe in building the cultural commons, I find this sort of piracy repugnant.

If this isn't the appropriate forum for this, I didn't know where else to bring it, and I wanted to go to authors before I went to Wikipedia staff.

OrangeBlueRed (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Good to bring it up. I'm no expert, but I know the author has to keep Wikipedia's work under the GDFL as well as citing the source – see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Maybe add it to Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance? If the author properly licenses the work, then that's all we need to do. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Historial uses of memory

The Bogomils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.144.241 (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In India, in the past, the sacred books were committed to memory, and handed down from teacher to student, for ages.

And even today it is no uncommon thing for the student to be able to repeat, word for word, some voluminous religious work equal in extent to the New Testament.

Max Muller states that the entire text and glossary of Panini's Sanscrit grammar, equal in extent to the entire Bible, were handed down orally for several centuries before being committed to writing.

There are Brahmins today who have committed to memory, and who can repeat at will, the entire collection of religious poems known as the Mahabarata, consisting of over 300,000 slokas or verses.

Ahh!

Sorry, I know this really isnt the place, but is there a limited mempry for abstract thought or 'forms', I am only asking because Im freaking out a little about forgetting a few things I used to know quite well. An answer would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.98.32 (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References Section

We have a pretty decent article here talking about the psychology and physiology of memory. Then at the end we shift gears into what is really a trivia section with another name. Going from reading about implicit and explicit memory and LOP to reading about mentions in movies and video games seems a bit out of place. Thoughts? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Like almost all similar sections on WP, it's garbage. We wouldn't lose any value by just removing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Speaking of spam...

The section on Short-Term Memory includes what appears to be a plug for the - no doubt wonderful - speed-reading courses of one James Abela, and his method for turning Everyman into a walking Wikipedia. Hooray, etc. But this, too, is inappropriate and POV material for an encyclopaedia article.

Sadly, this particular subject is inevitably going to attract woo merchants of every stripe, plugging their special snake-oil. Looks like eternal vigilance is the price of verity once again.--Cdavis999 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the material that appears to be spam. --agr (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph - appears to be marketing

I have just deleted the following paragraph. I followed the footnot link and got a website offering to sell me the book:

Tony Noice, an actor, director, teacher and cognitive researcher, and his psychologist wife Helga, have studied how actors remember lines and found that their techniques can be useful to non-actors as well. REFERENCE CITED Noice and Noice. (2006). What Studies of Actors and Acting Can Tell Us About Memory and Cognitive Functioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 15, Number 1, February, pp. 14-18(5). --AlotToLearn (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

what are the technological memories???

anu ba ang memory ng mga computer?? cellphones??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbz999 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Try again in English, please. Looie496 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Memory, the store of truths.

Memory is the container of the truths observed by the observers 'self' in a plurality of 'now', located in the past. The container houses also the 'self', which is a unit of consciousness crested by the Nothingness of the observers 'I' limiting a unit of flowing time and making it a static uni 'now'. The whole of the memory is located in the immaterial space time. Every truth, whether from the memory or the one observed in the current 'now', is the duality of the 'body and soul', as the static-dynamic states or the material-immaterial space time. Material body of a truth communicates with the observer through senses. Soul of that truth is observed by the observers 'self' with the immaterial senses, contained within the memory. When body and soul of a truth have the same organization the truth is a 'fsct'. The truths 'facts' can be observed simultaneously by many observers but they cannot be ommunicated to other observers. The inability to communicate with other observers is overcome by the use of a 'symbol'. The symbol is substituted for the truth 'fact' and it is in illogical relationship with the truth 'fact'. This enables 'self' of the observer, using the 'symbol', such as that of the electromagnetic field in the brain, to observe truths 'facts' in only the immaterial world without the observed truth having to have a material body. This new immaterial truth, is called the 'meaning' of the symbol. The 'self' is conscious of existence of the duality of the space time of the 'meaning'. This way motivated 'self' can observe reflections, in the immaterial world, of all the three space times, those of matter and the material and immaterial worlds. The truths within the memory are organised in the same way as those in the material world. It is the observer who causes difference because he uses two different magnitudes of the unit 'now' to measure the velocity of the flow of time. The small unit 'now', used in the immaterial world, makes the memory appear to be invariable. Changes in the memory are slower than those in galaxies or atoms which are located on the border of the material space. KK (92.29.65.40 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Please note that talk pages should only be used for discussions related to improving the article, and any changes to an article should be based on reputable sources that have already been published somewhere else. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Parallel Distributed Processing

No, not the AI connectionist theory (though it's vaguely related), the theory of memory formation...seems to be completely absent from wikipedia despite having reasonably strong support from the field (or so my first year psych class claims). This might deserve a little more mention. 131.170.90.4 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

PDP theory relates more directly to learning than to memory per se. The Physiology section does touch on related topics, but I agree that more could be said about synaptic mechanisms, if somebody got around to writing it. Looie496 (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Memory cycle ?

Isn't there a memory cycle step by step, such :

1. Identifying (the object to memorize)
2. Understanding
3. Memorizing
4. Using

? I don't find any such cycle in the article. I'm not relate to this field of studies, and I haven't Papers to back up this, but this cycle seems obvious and to include in the article. Regards Yug (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No there is not any mention of this for the reason you have outlined, no reliable sources mention it. What seems obvious to you or anyone else is immaterial. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at a dozen of article relate to the field, nothing, except the Learning cycle (teaching method) which may be the closest. I don't know the keywords to look for that, but that's so basic and common, it should be some paper exposing something like that. Yug (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Something like that would possibly be suitable for the article on memorization, but I don't think it belongs here. Putting it here would be roughly equivalent to putting material about strength training in muscle. Looie496 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Memory|p00548yy}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Criticism

A major flaw in this article is that it focusses entirely on the modern, psychological definition of memory. There is a long history of how educated circles were fascinated with the relationship of memory to education, beginning with Plato's preference of knowledge drawn from rote memorization over the contents of books, thru the Renaissance with Giordano Bruno's theory of memorization & Erasmus' anecdote of the rhetor with the "synthetic memory", & to modern educational theory that learning theory & application is better than rote memorization. Francis Yates's The Art of Memory (1966) covers the Renaissance portion of this tradition. -- llywrch (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you feel like adding some material on those topics, I for one would be all in favor. Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If I knew enough to do so, I would. Time has passed on Wikipedia when one could add content from memory to a major article -- like this one. All I can do now is to point to the problem & propose a source for someone to use. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

• CBS 2-part episode of "60 minutes" aired on 19 Dec 2010 concerned a few people who exhibited exceptional "autobiographical memory", that is, could remember detailed events of nearly everything they were exposed to in their lives. MRI scans suggest areas of the brain which were different than the average person, attributed also to causing obsessive-compulsive disorders. They all had a means to organize information in their minds in a rather natural manner (that is, without effort), resembling playback of a DVD rolling back over time. Interesting was that they all (of the five interviewed with the condition) had difficulty establishing or maintaining long-term relationships. Only Marilu Henner had been married, and she was on her third marriage at the time. I personnally know another person who had near-total recall, although not as pronounced as the subjects of the show. On of Leslie Stahl's questions (to which there was no clear answer), was something of the nature of: If there was such a clear advantage, why didn't evolution (or genetics) give the majority of people the same ability? Perhaps the ability to sustain relationships is a clue. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Hi, according to B. Libet, visual stimuli takes 20-40ms to reach the brain while, auditory stimuli take 8-10ms. According to his theory, (Libet's half-second delay in consciousness; 1991-I think), once stimulation occurs it takes, on average, 500ms of neuronal activity to process/become aware of the stimulus. If the stimulus is presented more intensely we may become aware of it more quickly, & for longer. But I've heard/read several variations on visual processing time. Most commonly, that different areas in the visual cortex specialize in processing different aspects of perception(i.e., shape, color, and motion)at different speeds. So, we're detecting, and processing, color and motion simultaneously, at different speeds, and perceiving one aspect before the other. Weird... But, this theory may be out dated now. Regardless, I pasted information on the textbook I got this info from below. And sorry, but I have never heard of Palmer. Oh, and there's also Milner & Goodale's ventral & dorsal stream theory of visual representation (this is not the actual name of the theory, I'm not sure it has a name), however, their view also includes many semi-independent sub-systems processing visual input at different speeds. Cheers, ~ Myah (Myah1977 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)) Blackmore, S., (2004). In E., Woolf (Ed.) Consciousness: An introduction. 321-324. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Memory

There are two different types of memories. Short Term memory which is mainly in the Frontal Lobe and the Long Term memory which is mainly in the Temporal Lobe. There are also two ways in which we store information in each memory type. Information might be stored Explicit in which we have to use consciousness and be consciously aware of how to use the stored information, there is also an implicit way in which we use either skills or classical conditioning in order to store information. This doesn't require any consciousness and we can perform well at the task without even thinking of what is suppose to be done. Tasks such as turning off the radio, eating, and so on. Implicit memory uses the bottom up processing whereas the Explicit information in processed in a top-down form. The subject needs to be actively involved during explicit tasks however the subject has a passive role in implicit information.

In fact when using implicit memory no feedback is to be sent to the cortex and that's why we don't need our conscious awareness to be involved during such tasks. The advantage of this is that we can pay more attention to tasks which require more of our awareness.

There is also an emotional type of memory which is about the situations that were emotionally important to us. For example, the death of a loved one, and so on. Amygdala, plays a very important role in this type of memory. Rosa Rahin 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Rosa Rahin 3 Oct 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosa Rahin (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"asxdfgh?"

In the Level Of Processing section, this sentence occurs: "Elaboration - Palmere et al. (1983) gave participants descriptive paragraphs of a fictitious African nation. There were some short paragraphs and some with extra sentences elaborating the main idea. Recall was higher for the ideas in the elaborated the asxdfgh paragraphs."

Im pretty sure thats incorrect. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled how you could have seen that. It was vandalism, and reverted less than a minute after being saved, almost three hours before you posted this message. Looie496 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Observe your memory.

Every moment of time 'now' contains consciousness of the 'self' of the observer and the observed picture contained in that moment. When the observer changes his 'now' for the next 'now' the picture from the first 'now' ceases to exist and it is replaced by a different picture in the second 'now'. What happens to the picture in the first 'now'? Unit 'now' containing consciousness of the observer, is an interval of flowing time made static by the limit of I and it consists of unlimited plurality of points of Nothingness. The points were organized into the picture observed in the first 'now' in the immaterial space time which is 'static' so that the picture remains static. The picture is in the sate of non existence for the observer whose consciousness is in the second 'now'. The observer has a mechanism which he uses to recall the picture contained in the past 'now'. Observing the first picture he gives that picture a name in the form of a 'symbol'. The picture and the symbol, as one duality of truth exists in the past. When in some future 'now' the symbol enters observers consciousness it combines, through the identity, with the symbol from the past. This brings into the consciousness in the present 'now' the picture contained in the past 'now'. KK (178.182.11.155 (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC))

So this helps the article how? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It does help because it shows that we know very little about memory. To answer the problem of 'what is memory' it is necessary to know the correct cosmology. KK (86.166.144.164 (talk) 19

27, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Further reading

This section has grown out of control, so I have moved it out of the article into this talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Further reading and put only entries that are topical, reliable and balanced, and please, keep the section limited in size. "Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works." Please, if you add an entry back into the article, motivate why. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alberini, C.M. (2005) Mechanisms of memory stabilization: are consolidation and reconsolidation similar or distinct processes? Trends in Neuroscience, 28, 51-56.
• Asimov, Isaac (1979). Life and time. New York: Avon Books.
• Brockmeier Jens (2010). "After the Archive: Remapping memory". Culture & Psychology. 16 (1): 5–35. doi:10.1177/1354067X09353212.
• Byrne, J. H. (2007) Plasticity: new concepts, new challenges. In: Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y. and Fitzpatrick S. M., eds. Science of Memory: Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 77–82.
• Conrad, C.D. (2010). A critical review of chronic stress effects on spatial learning and memory. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 34(5), 742-755. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2009.11.003
• Craik, FIM & Lockhart, RS. (1972). "Levels of processing: A framework for memory research". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol.11, No.6, December 1972, Pages 671-684
• Danziger, Kurt (2008). Marking the mind: A history of memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dudai, Y. (2006) Reconsolidation: the advantage of being reinforced. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 174-178.
• Dudai, Y. (2007) Memory: It’s all about representations. In: Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y. and Fitzpatrick S. M., eds. Science of Memory: Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 13–16.
• Eysenck, MW & Eysenck, MC. (1980). "Effects of processing depth, distinctiveness, and word frequency on retention". British Journal of Psychology, 71, 26-274
• Fivush, Robyn and Neisser, Ulric (1994). The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in the self-narrative. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Fransen, E., Alonso, A.A. and Hasselmo, M.E. (2002) simulations of the role of the muscarinic-activated calcium-sensitive non-specific cation current I(NCM) in entorhinal neuronal activity during delayed matching tasks. journal of neuroscience 22, 1081-1097.
• Jensen, O. and Lisman, J.E. (2005) Hippocampal sequence-encoding driven by a cortical multi-item working memory buffer. Trends in Neuroscience, 26, 696-705.
• Hacking, I. (1996). Memory science, memory politics. In P. Antze & M. Lambek (Eds.), Tense past: Cultural essays in trauma and memory (pp. 67–87). New York & London: Routledge.
• LeDoux J.E. (2007) Consolidation: Challenging the traditional view. In: Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y. and Fitzpatrick S. M., eds. Science of Memory: Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–175.
• Mandler, G. (1967). “Organization and memory”. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol. 1, pp 328–372. New York: Academic Press.
• Mandler, G. (2011) From association to organization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (4), 232-235.
• Middleton, David and Brown, Steven (2005). The social psychology of experience: Studies in remembering and forgetting. London: Sage.
• Moscovitch, M. (2007) Memory: Why the engram is elusive? In: Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y. and Fitzpatrick S. M., eds. Science of Memory: Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17–21.
• Nader, K., Schafe, G.E. and LeDoux, J.E. (2000b) The labile nature of consolidation theory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1, 216-219.
• Olick, Jeffrey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, & Levy, Daniel (Eds.) (2010). The collective memory reader. Oxford University Press.
• Palmere, M., Benton, S.L., Glover, J.A. and Ronning, R. (1983). Elaboration and the recall of main ideas in prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 898-907.
• Ranganath, C. and Blumenfeld, R.S. (2005) Doubts about double dissociations between short- and long-term memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 374-380.
• Sara, S.J. (2000) Retrieval and reconsolidation: toward a neurobiology of remembering. Learning and Memory, 7, 73-84.
• Schacter, Daniel L. (2002). The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Schwabe, L., & Wolf, O.T. (2010). Learning under stress impairs memory formation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 93(2), 183-188.

doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2009.09.009

• Schwabe, L., & Wolf, O.T. (2009). The context counts: Congruent learning and testing environments prevent memory retrieval impairment following stress. Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 9(3), 229-236.doi:10.3758/CABN.9.3.229
• Schwabe, L., Bohringer, A., & Wolf, O.T. (2009). Stress disrupts context-dependent memory. Learning and Memory 16(2), 110-113. doi:10.1101/lm.1257509.
• Semon, R. (1904) Die Mneme. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
• Suzuki, W.A. (2007) Working memory: Signals in the brain. In: Roediger, H. L., Dudai, Y. and Fitzpatrick S. M., eds. Science of Memory: Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–150.
• Tyler, SW, Hertel, PT, McCallum, MC & Ellis, HC. (1979). "Cognitive effort and memory". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 5, 607-617.
• Cowan, Neilson. 1995.Attention and Memory : An Integrated Frame Network. New York:Oxford university Press, pp 167.
• Georges Chapouthier, From the search for a molecular code of memory to the role of neurotransmitters: a historical perspective, Neural Plasticity, 2004, 11(3-4), 151-158
• Julia Russell; Cardwell, Mike; Flanagan, Cara (2005). Angels on Psychology: Companion Volume. Cheltenham, U.K: Nelson Thornes. ISBN 0-7487-9463-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Costa-Mattioli, M (2007). "eIF2α Phosphorylation Bidirectionally Regulates the Switch from Short- to Long-Term Synaptic Plasticity and Memory". Cell. 129 (1): 195–206. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.050. PMID 17418795. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Autism and Memory

Hey everyone. Maria Izabel and I are in a Cognitive Psychology course at Davidson College. As part of this class, we are hoping to add an article about autism and memory. Previously, we tried to add a section to the Autism page, but they suggested we add it to the Memory page instead. We are currently working on revising the section we would like to submit, including information on Explicit/Declarative Memory and Implicit/Non-Declarative Memory in Autism.

Thanks! --Haschorr (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Course Page

• Education Program:Davidson College/Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q1)

This user is a member of the Wikipedia United States Education Program.

This user is a member of APS-Wikipedia Initiative.

How about writing a standalone article? There's certainly plenty of sources available to justify one. I don't think this high-level article should have more than a paragraph or two about the topic, and that probably isn't enough to satisfy you. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we tried to do that first, but Wikipedia rejected the creation of our new page because they thought we should just join the Memory page or Autism page. Initially, we tried to join the Autism page but they didn't want us to add a section to theirs either. Do you have any other suggestions? Do you think WIkipedia would allow us to create a new page if we expressed that neither the "Autism" nor the "Memory" page felt like we should add a section? Many thanks. --Haschorr (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the rationale for rejecting the submission was wrong, so I went ahead and moved the article into mainspace, as Autism and memory. It still needs work -- for one thing, it should have an introductory section on top before any of the titled subsections. Also looking it over I'm surprised not to see any mention of the fact that people with savant skills typically have extraordinarily good memory -- to me that's the most interesting connection between autism and memory. Please let me know if you need any help. Looie496 (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Why does this article assume a psychological definition of memory is relevant? Neurons have memory too. Mrdthree (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Memory of the Universe

Human observers cannot see the whole of the Universe all at once as it is at the observers moment 'now', even though the centre of observation, which is the observers 'here and now', does contain information about the inside of the space of the Universe. The information is given in the form of electromagnetic symbols which came to 'here and now' from every direction in space, each starting at a different time of the existence of the Universe from the 'beginning' to 'now'. The units located close to the centre of observation are seen, more or less, as they are there now. The units furthest away from the centre of observation are seen as they were at the beginning of the cycle of existence of the Universe. But an observer located at that boundary in the past, sees exactly the same picture. He observes the centre 'here and now' of the first observer as it was at the beginning of the cycle of existence of the Universe and not as it is 'now'. The units located 'behind' the boundary of the 'beginning' are in the state of non-existence and they cannot be observed because the electromagnetic symbol ceases to exist by the time it gets to the observer. As can be seen from the above characteristics, every point of the space of the Universe contains the memory of the whole cycle of existence of the Universe except that, for an observer located at some point 'here and now', one half of the memory is in the state of existence, it represents the past and it can be observed. The other half is in the state of non-existence, it represents the future and it cannot be observed. The information in the state of non-existence is also in the form of electromagnetic symbols and it exists as much as that which is in the state of existence except that it is not accessible to observation in 'here and now'. Time does not affect the memory of how the Universe looked in the past or will look in the future because the spectrum is static in the observers ‘here and now’ and it contains the whole of existence of the Universe of the observer. The memory of the Universe represents static contents at the 'now' of the Universe but the observer sees it as the interval from the beginning to the end of the cycle of existence of the Universe. The difference arises from the different magnitudes of the 'now' of the observer and that of the Universe. The sphere of symbols within the space of the Universe is static in a particular 'now' of the observer but with the passage of time for the observer it is changing in itself in two ways. The symbols change in themselves and they change as the sources of the symbols change. The information is given as a line of electromagnetic impulses extending over the whole of the age of the Universe. The memory is variable internally and it shows differences of organisation in different points of space. To observe differences among the various units in space the observer has to change his point of observation either by moving physically in space or by observing the symbols in time. A change of position in space requires velocity which is created by acceleration. Acceleration changes the unit 'now' which in turn changes the picture of the Universe. In consequence the contents of the space becomes dynamic not in itself but because of the dynamism of the observer. Alternatively observation of the electromagnetic symbols by a static observer retains their static state apart from the inaccuracy due to the motivation from the perfect centre. This however requires the observer to move through time. The memory of the various units in space of the Universe, enclosed within the electromagnetic symbols is carried by them from the 'now' of the source to the 'now' of the observer, The symbols travel through space with constant velocity of 'c' but they are being motivated from the perfect centre and that alters them. In consequence they follow converging spiral to the centre of observation changing their relationship to other symbols. KK (86.161.199.24 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia talk pages should only be used to discuss ways of improving Wikipedia articles, and any improvements must be based on reputable published sources. In other words, that essay does not belong here. Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

==The Memory Wiki is monopolized by psychologists Neurons have memory. Random and organized neural circuits have memory (reverberation). Organized circuits can have short-term, working, or long-term memory properties. Where does wikipedia deal with memory in its proper, generalized information processing sense? i.e the ability of a complex system to temporarily store information relating to a signal? MAJOR ISSUES WITH PSYCHOLOGY BIAS-- Memory is more than a mental phenomenon. It exists in neurons, neural circuits, networks and brains. Article must be reconciled with http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Memory Mrdthree (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Mrdthree (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lost memories might be able to be restored, suggests research into marine snail

Research suggests that memories are not stored in synapses. When and if secondary sources are found, these results could be mentioned. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141220104133.htm -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Drug confusion

Someone ought to decide whether the paragraph about Barbara Rothbaum's work is talking about cycloserine or dicyclomine. They're not the same. 97.94.130.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact I simply deleted that paragraph (as well as several more around it). This article ought not to discuss individual experimental studies unless they are highly notable; that study is just one of a million. Looie496 (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

When thinking about memory in children, infant amnesia is a factor that must be taken into account. Infant amnesia and childhood amnesia are where children have problems remembering initial episodic memories of their childhoods. The articles below give information regarding this topic. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.2.155 and http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-36251-001 D Rspridge (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Rspridge

Memory

Old Text: From an information processing perspective there are three main stages in the formation and retrieval of memory: Encoding or registration: receiving, processing and combining of received information Storage: creation of a permanent record of the encoded information in short term or long term memory Retrieval, recall or recollection: calling back the stored information in response to some cue for use in a process or activity

Problems: The STM record is not "permanent;" it is transitory. That is why we call it "short-term." LTM usually requires rehearsal of received information, which involves retrieval. Thus, Retrieval is not a stage separate from Storage. PMI43 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Peter Irwin petermirwin@gmail.com

I've removed "permanent" from that text. While retrieval is involved in rehearsal of received data, that does not mean that it cannot be seen as a step or stage in the process apart from storage in order to better understand the process. The beginnings of understanding should not be undermined by the intrusion of advanced concepts too early in the learning process.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Memory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430232457/http://www.med.univ-rennes1.fr/iidris/cache/an/40/4003 to http://www.med.univ-rennes1.fr/iidris/cache/an/40/4003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514201825/http://www.med.upenn.edu/uep/user_documents/Ellenbogen2006-Interferingwiththeoriesofsleepandmemory-sleepdeclarativememoryandassociativei.pdf to http://www.med.upenn.edu/uep/user_documents/Ellenbogen2006-Interferingwiththeoriesofsleepandmemory-sleepdeclarativememoryandassociativei.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070719053600/http://www.ilcusa.org/_lib/pdf/ISOA.pdf to http://www.ilcusa.org/_lib/pdf/isoa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628193757/http://step.psy.cmu.edu/articles/Conrad64.doc to http://step.psy.cmu.edu/articles/Conrad64.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Two suggestions - reorg, history

This major article needs to be better organized. At the moment it has 18 (!) top-level sections (chapters); 7 is a reasonable maximum to aim at(, and it matches the number of 'chunks' that people can hold in short-term memory, ahem). This matters because there is currently no 'red thread' to guide the reader, just a lot of apparently separate topics.

The reorganization might include an overview as well as a hierarchical structure, or it may be that a hierarchy and a matching (rewritten) lead would be sufficient.

Missing is anything on the long history of research, which could begin with Aristotle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sensory Inputs

The article's current focus on sensory data paints an incomplete picture of the way memory works. If this were the only method -- i.e. sensory data -> sensory processor -> memory -- then I would not be able to recall what I was thinking yesterday. This is a fundamental part of both creative thinking and planning: that our thought processes (devoid of all sensory connection) can contribute to memory. TonyP (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Collective and Cultural Memory

Suggestion: Collective and cultural memory should be discussed, or the picture at the beginning of the article should be changed. The "Overview of the forms and functions of memory" image at the beginning of this article suggests that two major forms of memory are collective or cultural, but neither of those forms/functions is currently discussed in the article. If the image is representative of the topic, then probably there should be a discussion of these forms of memory. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Re-consolidation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_consolidation Do you think that a link to this page should be added to this article or even have a small section within the article? Redspaniard (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Great job with the consolidation of each subject regarding memory! If the subjects were clearly lined out in the lead of the article, then maybe it would be easier for the reader to get a summary of the article and topic of memory. If we are able to expand and add the necessary topics, then we can clearly identify each of the subtopics in the lead. This will make it more concise and easier to read! Great job with the topic this far!

mdavidwillis 05:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavidwillis (talk • contribs)

declarative memory

Added location of where the declarative memory operates in the brain, as well as a well-needed reference to the paragraph.Dylanwhite1997 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

the "doorway effect" on memory Suggestion

Can't find a wikipedia article on this. I can't believe it - I must be entering a wrong wording or something? It's such a funny phenomenon and quite well documented, researched and described in popular science TV and magazines e.g. The Doorway Effect: Why Do We Forget What We Were Supposed To Do After We Enter a Room?. Thy & greetings from Brussels :), SvenAERTS (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources and further reading

What is the difference between sources and further reading? My thinking is that sources are used in the article which should therefore be included inline which would appear in the references. DannyHatcher (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 9 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shannonballard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Redspaniard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LucieCham.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TykihyaG.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aleja bonilla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylanwhite1997.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)