Autism Vox
Common Sense
Developing Intelligence
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge
Dr. X's Free Associations
Geek Buffet
Greg Laden's Blog
Jabal Al-Lughat
Lingformant
Literal-Minded
Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)
phonoloblog
Polyglot conspiracy
Providentia
Tenser, said the Tensor
The Omnibrain
The Phineas Gage Fan Club
One fact about the world is that the most famous memory researchers did most of their work on verbal memory. Alan Baddeley and George Miller both come to mind -- and I doubt anybody can think of more famous memory researchers in the last 50 years.
Another fact about the world is that many researchers -- not necessarily Baddeley or Miller -- have assumed that anything discovered using memory tests involving words should apply to other forms of memory as well. To pick unfairly on one person, Cowan notes in his masterful paper "The magical number 4 in short-term memory" that out of several related experiments, one has results that diverge from the others. Cowan attempts an explanation but basically throws up his hands. He doesn't notice that of all the experiments discussed in that section, the divergent one was the only one to use visual rather than verbal stimuli.
Similarly, a reviewer of my paper which just came out complained that the results reported in the paper only "told us things we already knew." As evidence, the reviewer cited a number of other papers, all of which had investigated verbal rather than visual short-term memory.
As it happens, the results in this case were very similar to what had been reported previously for verbal memory. But it could have come out differently. That was the point of doing the experiment.
Partly because of this bias in favor of verbal materials, not enough is known about visual memory, though this has been changing in recent years, thanks in part to folks like Steve Luck, George Alvarez, Yuhong Jiang, Edward Vogel and several others.
----------
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and brain sciences, 24, 87-185.
Hartshorne, J.K. (2008). Visual working memory capacity and proactive interference. Public Library of Science One
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
A Need to Probe Deeper Into The Nature of Memory
August 3, 2008 by johnbrandy, 1 year 13 weeks ago
Comment id: 31364
The obvious question that arises from studies of verbal memory, compared and contrasted with visual memory studies, is whether or not verbal memory and visual memory reference the same part or parts of the brain. Have such studies been performed? If, in fact, verbal and visual memory utilize the same parts of the brain, then perhaps there may exist a significant congruency, sufficient to establish a consistent, similar, and testable process for both. If studies establish the utilization of different brain areas, then, clearly, divergent processes must be entertained for each function. What, as well, comes readily to mind, in this discussion, is the relationship of auditory memory to verbal and visual memory, as well as touch, taste, and smell. Do these senses draw upon the same and similar brain areas? Is there a hierarchy to memory; particular senses that are primary, or does dominance depend upon circumstance, such as blindness, or deafness. Further, I would suggest that the emphasis on verbal learning confuses the truth about visual memory and memory, generally. If visual memory is less developed, as well as the other for mentioned senses, their evaluation is judged upon latent and undeveloped capacities. Therefore, there appears the need to probe deeper and more broadly into the nature of memory, as it applies to the degree that each sensory component is actually, and fully developed. Evaluating a sensory component of memory, that is not equally developed, compared to verbal memory, is demonstratively flawed, and cannot represent a coherent fact. I offer this opinion for your consideration.