![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
[[1]]
Ill be bek 69.181.232.116 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
I think Retrospective memory could be merged into this article. --Dangherous 08:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Wouldn't electronic memory be seperate? But I suppose there is a discussion there...--Tapsell 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 thesisordissertation the sentence makes perfect sense. But I agree, let's see what other editors think. Edhubbard 16:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
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 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.
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)
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).
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)
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).
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)
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)
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?
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
"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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
What about electronic memory (RAM,...) ?
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)
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)
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.
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)
I have reverted a recent test edit. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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?
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)
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 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)
anu ba ang memory ng mga computer?? cellphones??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbz999 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
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))
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)
Isn't there a memory cycle step by step, such :
? 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)
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).
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)
Can someone add text regarding what's called a "photographic memory" ? Bevo 23:22, 4 Sep 2003 (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
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.
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)
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)
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))
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)
doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2009.09.009
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)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
![]() | This user is a member of the Wikipedia United States Education Program. |
![]() | This user is a member of APS-Wikipedia Initiative. |
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 (cfCognitivism (psychology), John Searle, J.J. Gibson, post-cognitivism)? Shouldn't other views be considered? User:BScotland
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))
==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)
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)
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)
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.
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/1993-36251-001DRspridge (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Rspridge
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
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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 assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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 assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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 assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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 assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
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 assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)