Dr. Shaw, in her book ‘THE MEMORY ILLUSION,” tells the story of her first day in the first memory class she ever took at a university. The professor picked up a piece of paper and waited for the class to settle down. He held up the sheet of paper and proclaimed, “This is what happens in the world around us.” Then he folded the paper in half. “This is what you perceive,” He folded the paper in half again. “This is what you pay attention to.” He folded the paper in half again. “This is what you are interested in.” Another fold. “This is what the brain makes into engrams.” he folded the paper one final time; it was now a small fraction of its original size. “And this is what you are able to access and recall later on.”
This is a splendid demonstration, and HM shall use it at his next opportunity. Memory is critically dependent on attention. HM knows the mnemonic technique for associating names with faces. Unfortunately, he never uses them. He is always distracted by something and spends the rest of the time trying to catch the individual’s name in the conversations. This is especially embarrassing if you are regarded to be an expert in memory.
Any advertisements that advertise easy learning, that is learning that does not require attention are bogus. This is especially true if babies are involved. In the case of babies, it is not just that techniques will not work, but that they can also cause harm. These dangers were previously discussed in the healthy memory blog post, “Cyber Babies.”
Other research conducted by Judy DeLoache and her team from the University of Virginia studied all 12- to 18-month old children learned language from a popular brand of baby media. They found that children who viewed the educational videos for four weeks did not learn any more or any fewer words than if parents were given no instructions to teach language at all. But they did find that the tots learned significantly more words if they were not exposed to any video but instead were taught words during everyday activities. It seems that babies prefer the live show. Other studies have produced similar results. Live presentation of language and tasks have been shown bo be far more effective for developing babies’ memories than any kind of media simulation.
What is more worrisome are the negative results that can occur. Frederick Zimmerman and his team at the University of Washington found baby television exposure to have highly detrimental effects on language development. They called 1,008 parents of young children and asked them about their children’s media viewing habits. They also asked them to complete the short form of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory, which measures language development in children. The survey found that for every hour of baby media watched per day by infants between 8 and 16 months, they were found to know six to eight fewer words.
In 2011 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clearly said the children under two should have no screen time at all. Instead, parents should use play and live interaction
if they want to give their babies the best possible developmental help.
It is likely you have seen videos of change blindness. Change blindness is the result of two bottlenecked processes that need to filter a great deal of information. The first bottleneck is our limited ability to perceive the world through our senses. The second is our limited short-term memory capacity. In one of the videos you are asked to watch a short video of a group of people passing a ball, and to count the number of times the ball was passed. After the video ends, you are asked for your count. Then you are asked did you see a gorilla cross the scene. About 46% of the viewers failed to notice the gorilla in the video. There are several similar demonstrations.
Daniel Levin and his team at Kent State University demonstrated change blindness blindness. They asked participants how likely it was that they would notice change in four different situations. Three of these situation had been previously tested and had produced change blindness rates in 100% of participants; the fourth was one where participants were approached by a lost pedestrian asking for directions and the person switched during the conversation after being briefly hidden from view. But across the four conditions between 70% and 97.6% of participants thought they would detect the changes described and they did so with high confidence ratings.