This Sciam article discusses a recent experiment with memory, that illustrates some of the complex detail that our memory can store. The experiment demonstrated that with a visual image to trigger memory recall, ordinary humans were able to quickly match and compare a really large number of details.
I thought a boingboing’s poster’s take on this was clever – managing long term memory may be a “search problem”.
Since I’m interested in memory, and the memory and association training systems from the underground esoteric culture like qabalah, art of memory, and mantrayama, I found this new study interesting, especially the visual cueing.
In the past several decades, cognitive psychologists have determined that there are two primary memory systems in the human mind: a short-term, or â€œworking,â€ memory that temporarily holds information about just a few things that we are currently thinking about; and a long-lasting memory that can hold massive amounts of information gained through a lifetime of thoughts and experiences. These two memory systems are also thought to differ in the level of detail they provide: working memory provides sharp detail about the few things we are presently thinking about, whereas long-term memory provides a much fuzzier picture about lots of different things we have seen or experienced. That is, although we can hold lots of things in long-term memory, the details of the memory arenâ€™t always crystal-clear
A recently published study by Timothy F. Brady, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and colleagues suggests that these long-term memories may not be nearly as fuzzy as once thought, however. In their work, the researchers asked subjects to try to remember 3,000 pictures of common objectsâ€”including items such as backpacks, remote controls and toastersâ€”that were presented one at a time for just a few seconds each. At the end of this viewing phase, the researchers tested subjectsâ€™ memory for each object by showing them two objects and asking which one they had seen before. Not surprisingly, subjects were exceptionally good (more than 90 percent correct) even though there were thousands of objects to remember. This high success rate attests to the massive storage ability of long-term memory. What was most surprising, however, was the amazing level of detail that the subjects had for all of these memories. The subjects were just as good at telling the difference between two pictures of the same object even when the objects differed in an extremely subtle manner, such as a pair of toasters with slightly different slices of bread.
If Itâ€™s Not Fuzzy, Why Do We Still Forget Things?
This new work provides compelling evidence that the enormous amount of information we hold in long-term memory is not so uncertain after all. It seems that we actually hold representations of things weâ€™ve seen in a fairly detailed and precise form.
Of course, this finding raises the obvious question: if our memories arenâ€™t all that fuzzy, then why do we often forget the details of things we want to remember? One explanation is that, although the brain contains detailed representations of lots of different events and objects, we canâ€™t always find that information when we want it. As this study reveals, if weâ€™re shown an object, we can often be very accurate and precise at being able to say whether weâ€™ve seen it before. If weâ€™re in a toy store and trying to remember what it was that our son wanted for his birthday, however, we need to be able to voluntarily search our memory for the right answerâ€”without being prompted by a visual reminder. It seems that it is this voluntary searching mechanism thatâ€™s prone to interference and forgetfulness.
And it is this voluntary searching mechanism that is trained and developed with associative tools like qabalah.