October 17 Blog

I thought that Bourtchouldaze’s discussion of prosopagnosia was very interesting, particularly the idea that even though such patients could not consciously identify any faces, changes in their skin’s electrical conductivity indicated that they can, on some unconscious level, identify faces. This made me wonder three things. First, I was curious as to what would make the researchers even begin to look at the electrical conductivity of the skin, for it seems that it would have been more likely for them to look for changes in conductivity (or another variable) in various parts of the brain. Second, I wondered why an increase in skin conductivity, which indicates a nervous, emotional, or guilty predisposition, would relate to face recognition; though emotional doesn’t seem very far off, feelings of guilt and nervousness are not ones I would think would be associated with knowledge of faces. Third, what are the differences, in terms of brain structures used, between “covert” recognition and “overt” recognition? Even though the facial recognition in this patient was unconscious, it seems unlikely that it would entirely bypass the brain structures used in conscious recognition. Bourtchouldaze states earlier in the chapter that “information flows through a set of distinct but interconnected neural networks, each of which performs a certain job. These interconnected networks allow information to be processed in a parallel fashion so that damage to one part of the network does not necessarily affect the function of the rest of the system.” What distinguishes, then, the part of the network involved in conscious facial recognition from the part that is involved in unconscious facial recognition?

I found this weeks reading from Schacter especially interesting. It is always the most compelling to read about case studies to better understand a concept. While reading the case studies of the people suffering from severe amnesia, I realized how important memory is to every aspect of our lives, and how devastating it would be to lose parts of it. Even the people who retained procedural memory and some of their semantic memory were severely impaired. The loss of your episodic memory leaves you with no real sense of self, no way to make goals or plans for the future, and no way to relate to people and make new attachments and connections. You are essentially alive in a very stagnant state. It seemed so hopeless and depressing.
I thought it was interesting when Schacter talked about how some amnesic patients are aware of their memory disorders and some aren’t. It seems like it could even be a built in defense mechanism for the person to be unaware of their memory problems. When they are left unaware they are able to exist as well as they could with their brains being so compromised. It seems similar to other mental illnesses like autism. More severely autistic children are as content with their existence as possible. Less severely autistic children, however, are aware that they are unable to make the connections with people that other people make. They are aware that they are not “normal” and that they are missing out on parts of life that others take pleasure in.
I liked the way that Schacter talked about the experiments in brain imaging that lead up to our current understanding of the different parts of the brain and what mental processes occur in each of them. The PET scan and magnetic resonance imaging have really elevated our understanding of the brain in ways that were never possible before. Studies conducted using this type of technology to figure out what parts of the brain are responsible for what seems much more exact and scientific to me than the studies we talked about before like Ebbinghaus and Bartlett. These new technologies allow us to take out the human element which made the previous studies unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is now possible to follow the scientific method more exactly and hold most of the variables constant except the one being tested. To me, the results from these tests seem more accurate and reliable.
Another interesting part in Schacter was when he discussed the experiment done on priming where they showed participants a picture for just a second and then later the participants said that the liked that drawing over the other ones. I find that is true in my life also. If I have heard part of a song, even just playing in the background as I am doing something else and not focusing on it I always like it more later when I actually listen to it. When something is even a little familiar, I like it more than I would if it was my first time hearing it. At least for me, this seems to be true of most things in my life. Familiarity has a comfortable feeling which for me, becomes intertwined with feelings of enjoyment. Even places seem nicer when I have already been there, even if I don’t know that I have been there until I find out later. I wonder if that is true for most people.

Luria

One thing that struck me was how S. didn't realize that he had an extraordinary memory until they first began to test him. It doesn't seem possible to me that he could not have figured out how diffferent his brain was from everyone else's. I wonder if his brain matured and his thinking changed as he began to critically analyze himself. I wonder if being forced to articulate how he thought and how his memory worked made his thinking patterns change. I know that when I try and think about how my mind does something, I never feel like I can truely grasp how it works because my concious mind always changes it in some way. Trying to dissect the thought into its component parts ruins some of the integrity of it. The subject would never be able to explain themselves fully because they would always be either succumbing to the expectations placed on them or conciously resisting them.
The other part that really fascinated me was his descriptions of his synesthesia. I wonder if this type of memory can be found to a lesser degree in other people or if it is one of those things that is either present or not. For instance, maybe some people have incredibly vivid visual memories and have different sensory perceptions, but just not quite to the extent that S. had.

October 10 post

Pillemer brought up some things that I have thought about before, particularly in terms of traumatic memories. I think someone said before that the most significant memories from their childhood were the good, happy ones. In my case though, it’s been the painful traumatizing events that have stuck out the most, when I was in a bad car accident and sprained my shoulder, or when I fractured my knee playing basketball. Both of those being sudden and extremely painful are probably reasons they are still so vivid in my mind. That being said, I don’t think of them as particularly haunting either. The older I get, the more I find myself disconnecting with those memories. It’s not as if they’ve faded dramatically, but more along the lines of they have stopped affecting me emotionally. This could be because they weren’t extreme life threatening events, and somewhere along the line I probably decided that I didn’t need to attach myself to those events. It’s funny that the memories that tend to bring up emotion or more visceral reactions are the more emotional memories, memories of a deceased friend or moving to a new home. Remembering emotion brings up emotion…it’s weird.

I also thought it was funny that S. (in the Luria book) had to will himself to forget. It’s been my experience that the more I try to forget, the more I remember. Maybe it’s a subconscious willing that I’m not aware of. It really struck me how tuned in to his memory S. was. Obviously he got better and better at explaining his images and his process of remembering. But even so, to remember how you remember is complicated, and then to be able to put that process into words, an almost story, is pretty amazing.

S and Forgetting

I was very intrigued by Luria's description of S.'s attempts to forget things. Though the methods S. tried to use to forget information he no longer wanted to be able to remember seemed odd and rather tedious at times, such as having to take time to visualize burning the information, it does seem to fit quite logically with S.'s general patterns of memory. When he would hear something, such as a sequence of numbers or words, he visualize the information in a chart and, when later asked to recall, would retrieve this information from his visual images of these very same charts. When he would try to forget this information then, he would visualize a chalkboard with these charts and attempt to mentally erase the information---another visualization technique. It was surprising to me, then, that such a method did not work. The fact that he found success in a method as simple as not recalling things he did not wish to recall seems unusual, and left me with an unanswered question. Though in one instant, such during a performance, S. might not wish to remember certain data and is able to "forget" it, does that mean he will has forgotten the data forever or just in that instant when he wanted to forget it? If he later wanted to remember data he had previously "forgotten," would he be able to? I am hesitant to believe that a man with such a complex and detailed memory system to rid himself of memories in such a simple and passive way.

Luria and Pillemer

I found Luria’s account of the mnemonist extremely fascinating. I was most interested in the ways that his memory affected his ability to think and reason on a higher level. Despite his prodigious memory, S had a great deal of trouble understanding abstract thoughts and ideas, due to his mind’s need to visualize and hear everything that it encountered. For example, if he heard the words intelligence or boundless, he might be able to associate some sound with them, but they are both rather difficult words to attach visual imagery to (I realize that these may not be the best examples; “nothing” and “infinity”, as discussed in the book work better). It would have been interesting to know how S dealt with less visual but still abstract words such as love, sadness, or joy. It’s easier to attach visual imagery to these words but they are still abstract concepts.

I was also interested by his inability to forget things, needing to visually erase them or throw them away in order to not have them interfere with whatever he was trying to do. I was amused (although it must have been quite frustrating for him) by his account of trying to forget things by writing them on scraps of paper, and then burning the papers, but still being able to make out fragments of the words on the charred paper. It seems that S has to work harder to forget things than most of us have to do to remember things.

I wish that Luria had investigated his memory’s affects on his personality more deeply. S’s descriptions of visualizing “him” doing things, but separately from the “I” was fascinating. His differentiation between reality and imagination seems very thin at times and it would be interesting to know how aware he is of what his mind is doing. Luria never really address how much control S had over this splitting, or if he was able to exert more or less control over it at certain times.

Pillemer devotes chapter two to commenting on what makes a memory memorable. He first discusses traumatic memories in relation to PTSD. These memories are imprinted in the brain during a high stress situation, are most clearly recalled when the person feels helpless to control the situation, and are easily recalled at a later time. There are generally numerous, sometimes seemingly insignificant, triggers for these memories. He next discusses critical incidences and insight, situations where a situation is clearly recalled but is not traumatic. These usually include major life events or decisions. This chapter is quite thorough but I was surprised that Pillemer didn’t incorporate a discussion of repressed memories. I realize that this is a controversial and complex idea, perhaps too complicated to discuss in-depth in this text, but it seems like he should have at least raised the idea. He does broach the issue, to some extent, in the section on accuracy, but he never mentions not repressing the incident altogether.

comments on Pillemer

Pillemer brought up several things which i found very interesting and that have come up in my own thoughts. One of these is the idea of traumatic experiences causes startling memories to spring up on even seemingly minor cue's. What interests me in this case specifically is the ability to suffer through life threatening scenario's and then have very significant cues not summon up painful memories [but still be able to remember the events]. In the reading, it mentions that the more traumatized someone is, the more significant this is, and it states that trauma is often a factor of suddenness or speed of the event. There is however a reference to trauma being active in situations that are not only dangerous and fast, but in which the person feels profoundly helpless to alter the events in the moment. In this case, having someones memory be significantly amplified or not based on their perceived helplessness is extremely interesting to me. It would imply that life threatening situations in which one has perceived agency are not as significant in terms of inducing trauma, and not as significant with coding precise memories. In later stages of the reading it is stated that imprecise memories are more adaptive to dangerous situations [like the cave man example], and therefore rote memory is less adaptive. Yet, we see this example of more rote memory in a situation in which not having a recurrence of the event is obviously more important [helpless to danger]. The reading also gives the example that the more rote someones memory is, the more they tend to have 'flashbacks' of the events when prompted in similar and inappropriate situations alike [giving credit to their theory of it being maladaptive].
This issue made me wonder on people's ability to not be traumatized. That is, how is a persons memory and how they remember the event affecting how noticeably traumatized they are, and in fact, how generally traumatized they are. Because a person may not be 'traumatized' by the one event, but having to continually relive the event at even the most moderate cues, and then to remember it so vividly could cause them to be traumatized where they would not have otherwise [especially in the long term, ie. 15-20 years later].
As one might imagine, i thought of some of my own brushes with danger, and my ability to remember them in depth vs. how often they are cued and how much do i perceive them haunting me. My personal findings did not concur with the theory here, but thats just me, and i would like to talk in class or read peoples blog about their personal feelings on memory and its connection to trauma or distress or pain.
On a smaller note, i was wondering how people who are blind remember momentous events, which are apparently heavily visual memories.