Some targets for memory models

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.006Get rights and content

Abstract

This introductory article to the Journal of Memory and Language special issue on memory models discusses the progress made in the field of memory modeling during the last few decades in terms of a number of previously suggested criteria, using the articles in this issue as examples. There has been considerable progress, both at a technical level (e.g., concerning model comparison and model analysis techniques) and at a psychological level (as evidenced by the increasingly tight interplay between theory and data on human memory). The article concludes by proposing a few generic targets for future modeling work.

Section snippets

Progress in computational modeling of memory

Turning first to an examination of the somewhat vexing issue of what exactly constitutes “progress,” one cannot help but note that previous discussions of the issue were sometimes characterized by angst about whether the field as a whole has made sufficient cumulative advances (e.g., Krantz, Atkinson, Luce, & Suppes, 1974, cited in Estes, 1975). We take as our lead a discussion of the issue of progress and its proper metric in an influential article by Estes (1975), titled “Some targets for

Some targets for memory modeling

Our analysis leads us to postulate four targets for future endeavors in the modeling of human memory. Although those targets are necessarily subjective, we keep them as generic as possible by avoiding focus on particular domains of enquiry.

  • (1)

    Overcoming “isolationism.” We have already pointed out how some of the papers in this issue are beginning to build bridges between areas of enquiry. This trend is welcome and must continue if we wish to overcome some of the rather arbitrary divisions

Conclusions

In our view, the articles compiled in this special issue indisputably reveal that modeling of human memory has made tremendous progress during the last 30 years. Although much remains to be done—and we have postulated some tentative targets for future endeavors—the abundance of novel technical tools and the accompanying increased precision of our theories and sophistication of the data base undeniably represent real progress. The self-criticism and skepticism that characterized earlier

References (34)

  • W.K. Estes

    Classification and cognition

    (1994)
  • W.K. Estes et al.

    Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

    (2005)
  • S. Farrell et al.

    An endogenous distributed model of ordering in serial recall

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

    (2002)
  • S.D. Gronlund et al.

    Time course of item and associative information: implications for global memory models

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1989)
  • E. Heit et al.

    Relations among categorization, induction, recognition, and similarity

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (2005)
  • Heit, E., Rotello, C.M. (2005). Are there two kinds of reasoning? Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference...
  • W.E. Hockley

    Analysis of response time distributions in the study of cognitive processes

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1984)
  • Cited by (0)

    The authors are grateful to Kay Bock, Bob Greene, and Dave Plaut for comments on this article. Preparation of this article was facilitated by a Large Grant and by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council to the first author.

    View full text