Memory (Part 2)

Hunter says the hypnagogic state (Reverie Period) just between waking and sleeping, is the time the subject is particularly rich in imagery, which is frequent and vivid.

An interesting point is made about the difference between memory and the use of knowledge. It has been noted that along with the development of skill in abstract thinking there is a decrease in imaging ability.

If there is a correlation between imaging ability, as there appears to be, and receptivity in general, are we then, to assume that analytical thinking tends to inhibit the capacity for quick rote memorizing?

This leads on to the phenomenon known as photographic memory. Hunter tells us it is an incorrect term, that this kind of memory isn't really photographic. It is actually a form of visual imaging, very strong in children, but rare among adults. This capacity is known among the researchers as eidetic memory—a high degree of visual imaging, but not totally photographic in that everything that is seen is registered, no matter how irrelevant to the material. Selectivity is involved—something unknown to the camera lens.

Hunter draws a fine line between learning and memory. Little or nothing is known of the physiological process. He lists as efficient techniques of study: selective observing or perceiving, organizing of the material and distributing the effort involved in study, and he rates organizing and finding the underlying principle most effective. Efficient learning, he says, is deliberate and fully conscious—not drill.

The neat little packages of advice offered by memory specialists are the conclusions drawn from the numerous investigations made in the field. Careful experiments have been conducted and the results tabulated and correlated, and from these results certain behavior is concluded to be representative of the process. Since the tests usually involve only a sample group, they cannot be considered absolute proof, but they do indicate a tendency, at the very least. Here is a brief review of some of these investigations.

One of the earliest memory experiments was conducted by Hermann Ebbinghaus at Harvard during 1892-93. He came to the conclusion that things heard and seen spontaneously were remembered best. Subsequent experiments did not always bear this out. In some instances variations were found among age groups. Some found hearing more effective, some sight.

In 1912 Henmon noted that most individuals are of the mixed imagery type. But again in subsequent experiments different results were obtained. Wewick tested seventy college subjects in 1932, and found that the auditory mode of learning was superior for them, both for immediate recall and for recall after a delay of from five days to five months.

In 1934 Stanton's experiments bore out this finding, but not with statistical significance in all cases. In the area of suggestibility, or influencing, Wilke found the audiovisual combination more effective, and since his subjects did not know they were being tested this experiment was more like an actual life situation.

Frank R. Elliot notes that prior to 1932 simple or nonsense materials were used, and in these experiments the results favored the visual over the auditory mode of learning. But since 1932, when larger numbers have been tested, using connected, sense materials, auditory was favored over visual learning. Elliot conducted tests for recall and recognition, using fictitious advertisements. His results showed the highest scores in a combined visual-auditory approach, the next highest for auditory methods, and the third for visual.