Endira Ferrara
While some might say that the memory system is developed to retain the events of relevance to the survival of the human being, it is clear in any case that events producing extreme emotion are more easily remembered. Does this mean, therefore, that they are more easily consolidated, or more easily triggered in the process of recollection? The researchers of the study conclude that emotion enhances recollection, due to the fact that in the process of recollection, one undergoes a form of re-experience of the situation, and therefore assists in the memory of context and the details of situations. Additionally, in the process of retrieving the memory, one may experience similar feelings to those experienced during the actual event.
The discussion between recollection and familiarity in this article also provided an interesting distinction between the memory of an event accompanied by contextual information (time, location, sensation, etc.) and merely the feeling that the event happened in the past, without the ability to contextualize it. We've discussed the importance of context specifically in the expression of emotion, and it is interesting to see the correlation between the necessity of context for the sake of not only expression but also memory storage. Without the ability to recall the entire situation of an experience, it becomes impossible to place within the autobiographical timeline of one's life.
I enjoyed the chapters in "Emotion and Memory" because I was able to see how the study of emotion and memory in a sense parallel one another. Even though two distinct forms of memory have been termed - short-term and long-term - it is clear that a number of systems in the brain are involved in the creation and expression of memory, just as is emotion. The distinction exists between memories established on the basis of condition, for example skills learned through continuous practice and repetition that often out necessity become habit, and those traumatic, highly aroused experiences that often take years to consolidate. They both reflect different forms, I believe of long-term memory. One requires the notion of repetition as an imperative process towards the consolidation of the experience so that it becomes conditional, and the other may be one single event of particular significance that gave rise to an extreme emotional response. McGaugh says that our response to each and ever new event depends upon what we expect or predict our response to be, based almost entirely on our memories of past events. In this sense, much of our emotional response to situations results from individual experience in the world. Does this mean, therefore, that much of the process of memory storage and consolidation is specific to the individual? It may be that the way in which we organize experience - that is, in terms of a past, present, and future - is common to us all, but our response to new experiences is dependent upon past experience, which is in essence not the exact experience itself, but the way in which we remember it.
In these two readings specifically, I couldn't help but think of Freud and his discussion of recollection and repetition. In his first chapter, McGaugh alludes to the notion of repetition as an imperative process towards the consolidation of experience. At the same time, Freud advocated repetition for the sake of remembering and making sense of past experience, and thus bringing what lies in the unconscious to the realm of consciousness. The idea that traumatic experience is only brought fully into the conscious (and is contexualized as an event in the timeline of one's life) through a repetition of that experience, or in other words, is only overcome through the re-experiencing of the emotional arousal accompanying the situation, is interesting to examine in light of the fact that we tend to remember the events that were the cause of an enhanced emotion. Particularly in terms of the 'flashbulb' memories, or the most traumatic experiences, it is true that at times these are the memories that are suppressed rather than remembered. In this case, only the feeling and experience is remembered, but not the situation and context. It may be that what is constant in one's memory of an event is the emotion; after significant amount of time has passed, the emotions of the experience remain; even if the context is not remembered, the feeling that such an event happened remains, and if the context is remembered, the feeling accompanies it. The fact that one is able to access a large amount of contextual detail of a situation through a re-experience of the particular emotion felt in that situation may support this idea.
3 comments:
Though emotionally arousing memories seem to be easier to retrieve, we are not able to remember them more accurately than neutral memories. As sad and terrifying as this is, there is a massive amount of literature on the topic which essentially illustrates that many memories are perverted or incorrect. The fallibility of memory is a topic I personally am very interested in, and this post actually brought to mind a horrifying study I read about some time ago: a young woman had it suggested to her that she had been sexually abused as a child, and later, in adulthood, she swore that she could remember the incidence of sexual abuse and even described the incident including spacial details, color, etc. This is a fairly well-know study that I'm sure many of you have heard of; it really gives you something to think about...
How interestingly perplexing;
We can all agree that we construct the story of our life based on secondary moments; in which our emotions where exceptionally aroused and hence our vivid memory of the event will clearly shape us, if not define us in a way. As you said ‘Without the ability to recall the entire situation of an experience, it becomes impossible to place within the autobiographical timeline of one's life.’ And I fully agree we need memory to create and validate the ‘story-line’ of the self we represent in the world, or at least in our world.
I found McGaugh’s writing style very personable and therefore suitable to the theme of discussion, memory is indeed an objective self-evaluative tool we use to advance in life. The idea that memory is not perfect and may be fallible becomes very complex and I think is worthwhile to evaluate. It brings up some problems in my opinion concerning the necessity of memory and how come that some extreme emotions are perfectly memorable while others remain subconscious?
What is most interesting to me though is the research on animals’ ability to learn through memory. The case of the dog barking because the opening of the gate; how he couldn’t oppress his nature but yet he felt and seemed to understand the consequence of barking—a hit with the newspaper on his head—so he continued barking but in hiding and afraid. Have we discredited and still are degrading animals to a lesser species, while all along they have their own language and memory? To say that animals have their own rational might be a stretch as the example with the dog, he might have memory but without cognition he cannot understand his owner simply wants him not to bark. (Other then little kids who learn to oppress their emotional response when it seems socially unacceptable.) Nevertheless the chimpanzees created tools to reach their bananas, this is quite sophisticated. Yet still, it is a survival instinct done for the hoped reward of nourishment. So although animals can learn and obviously have memory, it is very negotiable where the line can be drawn between habits and knowing, concerning the emotional impact of the remembered experience.
I have several thoughts after this weeks readings and reading some of the postings today:
* Culture. We have talked about the cultural influences of emotion. Might some of these ideas also carry over to memory. It seems to me that what is stressed as important or significant by a culture may color what kinds of things we remember, whether they are considered traumatic, etc. I also thought if this in relation to the thought that every memory is based on the previous memory of the event instead of the event itself. It seems like this leaves a good deal of room for individual memories to evolve into a cultural memory of sorts.
* LeDoux on page 182 clearly defines the differenece between teh explicit memory as "emotional memory" and declarative memory as "memory of an emotion". In thinking back about some of my own memories, I realize that the emotion attached to the same event may change over time. For example, in the split of a romantic relationship, I may initially feel hurt and sadness and my actions are based on this emotion. Eventually, the overarching emotion may be one of thankfulness or of frustration with my initial reactions to the event. In his section on long term memory, McGaugh mentions that Frank Haist's studies suggest "the hippocampus may participate in the consolidation process for a few years but the adjacent entorhinal cortex participates for decades." It seems to me that not only may the recall of details slightly alter as LeDoux addresses, but that the emotion attached to the memory may alter as well. This brings us to a point of two changing things - the memory and the emotion attached to the memory. Why is it then that these memories and emotions alter. if one were consistant, it might be said that the emotional experience or the details were more impressive than the other and therefore take precidence. However, if both memory and emotion change, what is left as the truth of the initial experience?
Post a Comment