Talk:Episodic memory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] Hi
Hi. I'd love to discuss how best to deal with the competing theoretical approaches to episodic memory in the litterature. Please do let me know your thoughts.
[edit] Episodic memory converted to semantic
As episodes in human memory age, the temporal (time) information stored with them begins to fade and to be lost. Unless an episode is explicitly connected with a particular time, the time associated with it tends to become vague and non-specific. Two unconnected episodes that do not share a common element that would establish their particular order thus tend to become confused as to which came first. For example, a person might vividly remember certain experiences that happened long ago in college: going to the Junior Prom, and also going on a week-long bicycle/camping trip with some classmates. The year of the Junior Prom is easy to remember, because it was an explicit part of the episode. But perhaps not so with the bike trip. At some point, the person may not be able to remember whether the bike trip happened before or after the prom.
There is thus reason to believe, as is stated in the main article, that "episodic memories are refined into semantic memories over time. In this process, most of the episodic information about a particular event is generalized and the context of the specific events is lost."
--82.80.15.103 07:43, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Perception of the Passage of Time
Our perception of the passage of time (whether it passes "slowly" or "quickly") may be connected with the operation of episodic memory and its gradual conversion into semantic memory.
It is possibile that we do not store information about the passage of time separately from information about the occurrence of events, but only in connection with the events themselves. Furthermore, our perception of the passage of time depends in some way on the stimulation of the events that we are experiencing. As a suggestion for one type of this phenomenon, "rich" stimulation may tend to form more complex and connected episodes than "poor" stimulation, and thus in a given amount of time, "rich" stimulation results in fewer (but elaborate) episodes, whereas "poor" stimulation results in more (but plain) episodes. Thus in this model, a given amount of time that is highly stimulating would result in fewer episodes than the same amount of time that is deficient in stimulation, and thus an hour of highly stimulating activity would be perceived at the time of its occurrence as passing faster than an hour of boredom.
This suggests that all episodes are more-or-less equivalent in the amount of perceived time they represent. Furthermore, as less significant episodes are forgotten, and as episodic memory becomes converted to semantic memory, our direct perception of the passage of time tends to become lost. We may remember that, during a particular event, time seemed to drag on and on, but we are remembering a note about a perception rather than the pereption itself. Overall, the tendency is to perceive that time seems to be going by awfully fast. The older we get, the fewer are the episodes significant enough to remember and the less capable we are of forming memories anyway -- and thus the faster time seems to go. --82.80.15.103 08:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Live-Review which can be observed during Near-Death-Experiences (NDEs)is stored in the episodic memory, in temporal order. When the rest of the Near-Death-Experiences (without Out of Body Experiences) is also seen as part of the episodic memory, then we can remind us of all the experiences of our life!!! This show, that our memory stores every individual episode in temporal order. (After the 6th/7th month of a pregnancy, the brain is able to store experiences. The first sense to work, is the acoustic sense (a noise is reported as the first experience during NDEs). As next impression, we run very quick through our experiences, where the optical sense is growing (we seem to move very quick through a tunnel towards a light). The movement is only an optical error! Before and after birth the eyes of a fetus/baby have a focus of 15-30 cm. Therefore persons outside of this range can not be recognized. Thus we remind us during an NDE, to have met light-beeings or light-persons. And so on...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.219.55 (talk • contribs)
- Spared remote memory in hippocampal patients suggest that memory is indeed eventually removed from the hippocampal system (and, in HM at least, from the medial temporal lobe in general). While the brain may store every episode in order (at least the attended stimuli), there is no reason to believe the memories remain in episodic form--if we didn't forget, most students would get better grades in school. Anecdotal evidence from claimed near-death experiences is insufficient to add this claim to the article. In fact, I'm not sure what your point is in writing this here. digfarenough (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Episodic as part of declarative memo
I am a bit dustrustful of this classification. Declarative memo, by definition ('that can be declared') has propositional format, i.e. it exists as, or can readily and accurately be described in, sentences of language. Now, how about facts from my personal life that are much finer-grain, i.e. they contain primarily imagistic (perceptual/sensory/phenomenal) content. These are nonpropositional and can only very crudely be rendered in a post-factum lignuistic description, always with a lot of 'je ne sais quoi' (you can try to describe it, but you know it exists within you not as sentences, but as sensory data - images, scents, etc.). Is there a separate classification for such a subset of memories? Regards, Ariosto 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Synchronization attempt with Semantic Memory article
I noticed the concepts/words used before weren't synchronized with the other sub-catagory of Declarative memory, so with the Wikipedia:Attribution act in mind, I made a point not to change any of these concepts. By rearranging the passage that refers to Episodic Memory as a sub-catagory of Declarative memory to the same tone as the Semantic Memory article, I was merely trying to syncronize the article to further enhance Wikipedia.com Through a process of synchronization, isn't the reader better off?
Even in the Beethoven article my change from a useless phrase from an encyclopedia like: Dyosonic energy (which is some sort of God of glorification) to a more usable word like: Glorification. I found no rules that conflict with my concept-based approach. - User:InternetHero 16:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean about Wikipedia:Attribution. Also, I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding the Beethoven article. I appreciate your attempt to better synchronize the articles: it is what prompted me to turn to the literature to find some good definitions instead of the previous content that didn't much reference the literature. I think it would be better to do the same to semantic memory, that is, to find definitions in the literature on use those for the introduction to the article. I'm not perfectly happy with the statement that procedural memory is a "counterpart" to declarative memory, as they are not the only memory systems in the brain. (Also, notice that you can make fewer edits by using the "show preview" button to view your changes, instead of repeatedly saving the page: it makes for cleaner history logs on pages, at least in my opinion). digfarenough (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Good points. The person that wrote that sentence stating that the "counterpart" of declarative memory is procedural memory is correct, because they relate to two distinctly different parts of the brain. Declarative memory involves correlations with our logical brain (cortex), and in contrast, procedural memory involves correlations with our more simple beneficiaries/faculties.
I understand that referencing past literature would have a nostalgic respect, but I'll leave you to judge my arguements furthermore. Heres the other relative article:
'Semantic memory' refers to the memory of meanings, understandings, facts, and other concept-based knowledge in relation to an experience. Semantic and episodic memory together make up the category of declarative memory, which is one of the two major divisions in memory. The counterpart to declarative, or explicit memory, is procedural memory, or implicit memory.
Heres my past edit:
'Episodic memory' refers to the memory of events, times, places, associated emotions, and other conception-based knowledge in relation to an experience. Semantic and episodic memory together make up the category of declarative memory, which is one of the two major divisions in memory. The counterpart to declarative, or explicit memory, is procedural memory, or implicit memory.
I changed this one prior to the article in question, but I think I didn't portray any of my own views. Again, I merely stated the concepts used in a syncronized fashion relative to the article in question. I think that the concept of a syncronized paragraph (with an agreeable concepts included) can be more effective than literature that was meant for a book. The Wikipedia.com system allows people to research in a fast-paced catagory format, so I think that having the paragraph very relatable to this article can seriously help in that process.
Procedural memory, which is a peer to Declarative memory, can just be referenced to the "instincts" or the limbic-system, so I didn't mention that. User:InternetHero 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- When I referred to literature I didn't mean books, but rather the scientific literature. Endel Tulving, referenced twice in the introduction, is the person who initially defined the modern view of episodic memory (though he restricted it basically by definition to humans). Nicola Clayton and Anthony Dickinson (and others) were the first group to show very convincing evidence that animals (scrub jays) have episodic memory too (though Howard Eichenbaum's lab has done a lot on rat episodic and hippocampal-mediated memory). I emphasize that because if we're going to start out by saying what episodic memory is, we should really quote the people who have published articles on it that have been subjected to peer review (and so ideally any poorly stated claims would have been caught and fixed). There's nothing terribly wrong with your wordings, but if we can't specifically find a reliable source that makes those same definitions, who is to say they are correct? That's why wikipedia strives to provide a reference for every claim, even if it is generally accepted to be true (Wikipedia:Verifiability). digfarenough (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I guess the person who originally posted the edit had no references? I think we should find out if they did first, but I still see you point.User:InternetHero 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see you have reverted my edit, replacing verifiable sources with an old claim that lacks references simply so it would better parallel the semantic memory article. This does not seem appropriate. If you feel further clarification is needed, the best solution is to find clearer definitions from the literature. The second best solution is to include the verifiable claims and then follow them with a separate paragraph or section giving an explanation. Simply removing referenced statements is not a good solution in my mind. digfarenough (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I think I got carried away there and I'm sorry.
You may think that giving scientific data facts without any filtering is nonsense (maybe because it has some conflicting perceptions with science), so I have to refer to my minor addition in the Beethoven article. I remember reading it and thinking: What in the heck are some of these words? So I looked them and simply gave a clearer defintion to the concepts they were trying to portray. (Dysonic to Intoxication - Exaltation to Glorification) Life would be boring if everyone was good at everything, right?
The problem here is you might think that I'm trying as a whole to add syncronization to the other article, but I made it clear that the concepts used weren't changed. Also, the word 'What' and 'Where' can easily relate to the semantic memory article if the theoretical knowledge therein involves mass and/or a specific place. For example, you can easily use semantic memory in relation to this sentence: Cats don't go where dogs are because of what dogs are.User:InternetHero 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This whole page is massively subjective, which makes it a great candidate for a wikipedia page. How about you prove some of this guff before waffling on about it?
- My grandfather once mind-melded a cockroach
- I killed a man by removing his hippocampus
I mean come on guys, get with the programme.91.84.51.91 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
