The Nature of the Traces and the Dynamics of Memory
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 8, Issue 6, December 2019, Pages: 151-157
Received: May 11, 2019; Accepted: Jun. 4, 2019; Published: Nov. 25, 2019
Views 12      Downloads 7
Brouillet Denis, Epsylon Laboratory, Paul Valéry University, Montpellier, France
Versace Rémy, EMC Laboratory, Lyon II University, Lyon, France
Article Tools
Follow on us
The aim of the present article is to show that current single-system models, clearly located in a dynamic memory perspective and embodied, had brought answers to questions that appeared in the Atkinson and Shiffrin model, that has been the reference for multi-system memory models for 50 years: one concerning the question of recovery in memory and the other the nature of the traces in memory. Our focus will be to show that it is not possible to define storage and recovery processes without taking account of the contents of memory and the dynamics of the emergence of knowledge. Two models will be presented, both defending the idea that it is not possible to distinguish between process and content, as memory does not encode and retrieve contents but reusable processes. In other words, these models suggest that knowledge is in a state of constant reorganization due to a combination of the subject's activity and environmental constraints. That is to say that they consider memory as a dynamic system. Consequently, the traces cannot be dissociated from the mechanisms that gave them birth. It is certainly on this point that the most radical break between these models and anterior models of memory.
Memory Traces, Single-system Model, Dynamic Knowledge, Fractal Architecture
To cite this article
Brouillet Denis, Versace Rémy, The Nature of the Traces and the Dynamics of Memory, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 6, 2019, pp. 151-157. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20190806.12
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2 (pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press.
Hockley, W., E. (2000). The Modal Model Then and Now. Review of On Human Memory: Evolution, Progress, and Reflections on the 30th Anniversary of the Atkinson–Shiffrin Model, by Chizuko Izawa, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 336-345.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1980). SAM: a theory of probabilistic search of associative memory The psychology of learning and motivations (Vol. 14, pp. 207-262). New York: Academic Press.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of Associative Memory. Psychological Review, 88 (2), 93-134.
Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Reviw, 91, 1-67.
Brooks, L. R. (1978). Non-analytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 169-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428.
Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological review, 95 (4), 528.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1987). Preservation of Specific Experiences in the Representation of General Knowledge. Cognition, 13 (1), 3–17.
Versace, R., Vallet, G. T., Brunel, L., Riou, B., Lesourd M, & Labeye, E. (2014). ACT-IN: an integrated view of memory mechanisms. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26 (3), 280–306.
Tulving, E. (1982). Synergistic ecphory in recall and recognition. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 36 (2), 130–147.
Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Versace, R., Labeye, E., Badard, G., & Rose, M. (2009). The contents of long-term memory and the emergence of knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21 (4), 522–560.
Murdock, B. B. Jr. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information. Psychological Review, 89, 609-626.
Metcalfe, J. (1991). Recognition failure and the composite memory trace in CHARM. Psychological Review, 98, 529-553.
Nelson, A. B., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2013). The co-evolution of knowledge and event memory. Psychological Review, 120 (2), 356.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 4 (2), 145-166.
Mueller, S. T., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2006). REM—II: A Bayesian model of the organization of semantic and episodic memory systems. In International conference on learning and development. Bloomington, IN.
Damasio, A. R. (1989). The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones. Neural computation, 1 (1), 123-132.
Abraham, F. D., Abraham, R. H., & Shaw, C. D. (1990). A visual introduction to dynamical systems theory for psychology. Aerial Press.
Briglia, J., Servajean, P., Michalland, A. H., Brunel, L., & Brouillet, D. (2018). Modeling an enactivist multiple-trace memory. ATHENA: A fractal model of human memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 82, 97–110.
O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 (5), 939-973-1031.
Hutto, D., D. & & Myin, E. (2012). Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds without Content, The MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological bulletin, 127 (1), 3.
Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attributions (391-422). In, Roediger III, H. L et Craik, F. (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving. New-York and London, University Press.
Whittlesea, B. W., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29 (6), 716-732.
Whittlesea, B. W. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19 (6), 1235.
Leboe-McGowan, J. P., & Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2013). Through the SCAPE Looking Glass-Sources of Performance and Sources of Attribution. In Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 243–266).
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1997). Production, evaluation and preservation of experiences: Constructive processing in remembering and performance tasks. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 37, 211–264. New York: Academic Press.
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2002). False memory and the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: The prototype-familiarity illusion, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 96-115.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., Leboe, J. P. (2000). The heuristic basis of remembering and classification: Fluency, generation, and resemblance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 84–106.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Leboe, J. P. (2003). Two fluency heuristics (and how to tell them apart). Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 62–79.
Whittlesea, B. W., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta psychologica, 98 (2-3), 141-165.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (3), 547–565.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., Williams, L. D. (2001a). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis I: The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 3–13.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001b). The Discrepancy-Attribution Hypothesis: II. Expectation, Uncertainty, Surprise, and Feelings of Familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27 (1), 14–33.
Whittlesea, B. W. (2011). Remembering under the influence of unconscious expectations (pp. 225-236). In Higham, P. and Leboe, J. (Eds), Constructions of remembering and metacognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Schwartz, B. L., Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1997). The inferential and experiential basis of metamemory. Current Directions in Psycho- logical Science, 6, 132–137.
Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55-68.
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331, 1279–1285.
Bitzer, S., Park, H., Blankenburg, F., & Kiebel, S. J. (2014). Perceptual decision making: Drift-diffusion model is equivalent to a Bayesian model. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8: 102, 1-17.
Osth, A. F. and Dennis, S. (2015). Sources of interference in item and associative recognition memory. Psychological review, 122 (2): 260.
Cox, G. E., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2012). Criterion setting and the dynamics of recognition memory. Topics in cognitive science, 4 (1), 135-150.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186