Talk:Encoding (memory)

Intention

"Studies have shown that the intention to learn has no direct effect on memory encoding. Instead, memory encoding is dependent on how deeply each item is encoded, which could be affected by intention to learn, but not exclusively. That is, intention to learn can lead to more effective learning strategies, and consequently, better memory encoding, but if you learn something incidentally (i.e. without intention to learn) but still process and learn the information effectively, it will get encoded just as well as something learnt with intention.[21]"

This paragraph contradicts itself. It states unequivocally that intention does not effect encoding ("deep" processing does) and then says that intention could affect encoding. Either intention does or doesn't, we really can't have it both ways. I also suggest that encoding should not be associated "learning strategies" as the latter are conscious, language based, encoded information (i.e., memory content); not a process that controls memory content like encoding. Whether learning strategies for learning actually affects encoding seems very unlikely as encoding is a very low level biologically-based cognitive ability. If learning strategies improve learning (which is debatable at best), improvement is for reasons other than improvements in encoding, so mentioning the two as related is confusing and best, and likely just wrong. Most of what we learn is "incidental" (which I would not equate with non-intentional) and depends on how and how much incoming information is processed, not "intent" however defined. My suggest is to delete the text under ths this heading after the second sentence. --- Rob C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: add section on memory-encoding impairments

Can include facts such as the activation of 5-HT1A receptors that has been demonstrated to impair memory (affecting declarative and non-declarative memory functions) and learning (due to interference with memory-encoding mechanisms), by inhibiting the release of glutamate and acetylcholine in various areas of the brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.45.181 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On Memory Stored "Within the Brain"

In recent news of 'induced hallucinations' or vivid spontaneous recall, or whatever, the study lead speculates that

"[Perhaps t]hese perceptions are the aggregate result of many thousands of neurons firing during each stimulation. "Maybe a specific group of neurons encodes a memory of a person wearing an apron, another group encodes an oven or a street, and when you stimulate them altogether it evokes a familiar memory of that place where all those things were," says Mehta."

If that is true, and it seems to be the conclusion to which all of the "sound science" in this article is tending, there must also be specific "groups of neuron's" for the constituents of the memory of "yesterday's" "uncommonly" "cold" "shower" that '"'felt like' a "'slap' to the 'face.'"' There must also be specific groups of neurons for memories of flash floods, side-swipe, front-end, read-end, fender bender, hydroplaning, etc. etc. car accidents, or no one would remember them. Nowhere in the article is it stated that the science in this article is based on such tendentious assumptions, but the reader is asked to take it on faith that all of this is somehow "encoded within the brain." There is 0 intellectual modesty in this article, in light of the fact that almost nothing is known about the physical underpinnings of experiential memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)