Sunday, September 30, 2007

October 3 --- Bartlett

Perhaps the most profound concept of memory present in Bartlett’s writings was that of a schema, which he defines as “an active organization of part reactions, or of past experiences, which must always be supposed to be operating in any well-adapted organic response.” This acts as a sort of filter through which all memories pass through when being remembered, due to its very nature, is constantly adjusted as individuals have more reactions and more experiences. As I read through Bartlett’s readings, I thought about the chapters in Schacter’s book I had just read and his discussion of the effects of time on memory, which ultimately presented the ideas that “time is the enemy of memory” and that distortions and failures of memory are somewhat inevitable. When put in the same context as Bartlett’s ideas, it brought to mind a conversation I had this past summer with my aunt during which she told me she’d read that when we remember things, we are really only remembering our last memory of them, an idea we have also briefly touched upon in class. This seems to give the schema even more importance, for the schema someone has at the moment they recall a specific memory will, it seems, shape the next recollection they have of the same memory. Consequently, if a memory is cued and recalled today, will it be remembered differently than if it were cued and recalled in a year, simply because the schema that would filter this memory would be different? Based on this week’s readings, I would have to assume that the answer to that question is yes.

Another thing I found particularly interesting was the idea of false memories that was presented in Chapter 4 of Schacter’s book. While he did briefly mention the idea of adults have false memories, especially upon cuing, like the Bavarian monk who thought he saw a dragon, he focused primarily on recounting example of children who create false memories. This made me wonder about the neuroscience behind creating false memories. In the instance of the woman who mistook a psychologist for a rapist, a certain deal of trauma (and possibly head injury) must have been involved to stimulate such a mistake. Patients with brain damage are also mentioned in reference to amnesia and memory failure. Does neuroscience play a role in the memory failures of children as well? Because the brain structures in children are still developing, it seems likely that immature brain structures would have an effect on proper functioning. How susceptible are children versus adults to recall false memories? How vulnerable are they to cuing to create false memories? And, most importantly, what brain structures and functions are responsible for such actions?

1 comment:

Stephanie A said...

I was also interested in Schacter's descriptions of false memories. It might be interesting to consider less traumatic incidences of false memories. My parents have a number of pictures of me as a child and sometimes I think that I can remember exactly what was going on when the picture was taken. Other times, I wonder if I'm just inventing a story based on what I see in the picture. Does the picture serve as a legitimate visual cue or is it tricking us into believing that we recall the story behind the photo?