Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T03:07:16.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specificity of Immediate Memory Function Associated with Cerebral Cortex Damage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Alfred B. Heilbrun
Alfred B. Heilbrun*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The psychometric assessment of memory presents special problems in that inferences regarding this function seem to be markedly dependent upon the conditions under which it is measured. Thus, following exposure to experience X, it is problematic whether a single statement regarding a person's ability to remember X can be made. His ability would likely be a function of the time between exposure and reinstatement (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Luh, 1922; Postman and Rau, 1957) and whether assessment involved recognition, free recall, or relearning (Luh, 1922; Postman and Rau, 1957). Beyond these, the importance of the sensory channel involved in the initial experience or in reinstatement (Thurstone, 1938, p. 86) and the nature of the content to be retained (Benton, 1945) remains relatively unexplored. All of these considerations dictate against accepting differing psychological test measures of memory as equivalent and, conversely, suggest that any generalized statements regarding memory ability should be based upon several different measures.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 106 , Issue 442 , January 1960 , pp. 241 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1960 

References

Anderson, A. L., J. Clin. Psychol., 1951, 7 149.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, A. L., Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., Chicago, 1945, 54, 212.Google Scholar
Idem , Revised Visual Retention Test: Clinical and Experimental Applications, 1955. New York.Google Scholar
Brain, W. B., Brain, 1941, 640, 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H., Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology, 1913. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hécaen, H., de Ajuriaguerra, J., and Massonnet, J., Encéphale, 1951, 40, 122.Google Scholar
Heilbrun, A. B., J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 1956, 49, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idem , Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., Chicago. In press.Google Scholar
Luh, C. W., Psychol. Monogr., 1922, 31, No. 142.Google Scholar
McFie, J., and Piercy, M. F., Brain, 1952, 75, 292.Google Scholar
Idem , Piercy, M. F., and Zangwill, O. L., Brain, 1950, 73, 167.Google Scholar
Meyer, V., and Jones, H. G., J. Ment. Sci., 1957, 103, 758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, A., and Zangwill, O. L., Brain, 1944, 67, 331.Google Scholar
Iidem , Brain, 1945, 68, 188.Google Scholar
Postman, L., and Rau, L., Univ. of California Publ. in Psychol., 1957, 8, 217.Google Scholar
Reitan, R. R., J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 1955, 48, 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L., Psychometr. Monogr., 1938, No. 1.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D., The Measurement of Adult Intelligence, 1944. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.