Talk:Autobiographical memory

message: In this article, the recency effect is mentioned in reference to the forgetting curve individual's experience for the last 10-20 years of their life. Use of this term is incorrect. The recency effect is an effect where recall of (or memory for)the last few items on a list (or the most recently presented information) are outputted more quickly and judged with greater memory strength than items in the middle of the list (or information studied later). The first few and last few items of information studied have an advantage in recall over middle list items which are respectively termed primacy and recency effect. 
128.233.84.235 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Use of Term

message: Something missing from the associative model is how people with the autobiographical memory condition are able to retrieve such memories both quickly and accurately, particularly considering the vast amount of memory information they are able to retain.  Understanding this could make great strides in research of both cognitive and computer sciences.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Memory Retrival

message: The image :File:Click film.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Click film.jpg

message: I think a reference to Superior autobiographical memory/Hyperthymesia should be added, but I can't find a suitable place. I saw a 60 Minutes episode about it (which is mentioned on the Hyperthymesia page). aditsu (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superior autobiographical memory 

message: For our class project, we (Isling and Monelson) will be expanding the field vs. observer portion in the "types" section. We will explore the various factors that lead to the recall of memories in either the field or observer point of view. Some of the factors that affect memory perspective include culture, individualism, gender, and whether encoding of information was intentional or not. We will also be discussing how changes in these factors change the way people remember the same and different memories. Isling (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Other Possible Sources:     Monelson (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Isaiah, I think if we wanted to combine any sections we could combine the Trauma Sections and then the Personal Identity from yours and the Sense of self from mine.  These two seem to be the ones that are the closest, let me know what you think. Monelson (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

text: In a few places the language is misleading, and implies that field memories are copies. They may be from a first-person perspective, but that does not guarantee an accurate memory. What is so interesting is that observer memories are almost always reconstructions as it is very rare that one has access to that perspective during encoding.  I will make minor edits to make sure the language reflects these distinctions. Elizareader (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Field vs. Observer

message: I am moving the whole section here. Reason is that this films are as relevant to the topic as any film in which a character talks about past events. Moreover all films are unreferenced. Unless sources implying that such films have been specially relevant for the comprenhension or evaluation of memory, that is, that they have changed our vision about autobiographical memory the should have no place in the article.
--Garrondo (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture section moved to talk page

message: I move here this section from the article: it was very large, and while it had some interesting sources there is no reason to think that any of them is specially relevant to "recommend" its reading over the potential thousands of possibles readins in the issue of autobiographical memory. If any of this is specially interesting it should be summarized and included as text in the article. I leave the section here so it can be used as a source of other sources not yet included in the article. --Garrondo (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading section moved here to Talk page

message: In subsection Autobiographical_memory#Moderators_of_perspective there is contradictory (and also rather confusing) information:
# High levels of emotionality are correlated with field memories, whereas memories that are based on concrete facts are correlated with observer memories.
# Other data has shown that emotionality of the individual at the time of encoding will more often yield an observer perspective than the field perspective.<ref name = "Sutin">
# The emotional charge also impacts whether a memory is perceived  when memories are associated with either positive or negative emotions they will more likely be recalled from the field perspective rather than the observer perspective, whereas memories that are not emotionally charged (neutral) are associated with the observer perspective rather than the field perspective.
I only have access to the abstracts, so it is difficult for me to know exactly what the sources say. However, number 1 and number 3 basically state the same thing: emotions --> field, facts --> observer, whereas number 2 states the opposite: emotions --> observer. Now number 2 and 3 have the same source!
My guess here, is that number 2 is a mistake and number 1 and 3 are correct.
Could anybody with access to the source please check if my guess is correct? Thank you! Lova Falk talk 13:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved and my guess was wrong! Thanks to this source I can now see it is the other way around. I'll change this. Lova Falk talk 14:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information 

message: 1. This section should elaborate on other important mechanisms that could be included in this section such as "the role of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms". 
2. Identify what "memory maintenance" looks like within the sensory revisions, and how they "observe patterns of activity". 
Anacvalle (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding more detail to the "Maintenance of a detailed memory" section.