Talk:Decay theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tmelior. Peer reviewers: Loulougirl5, AnhrUVU, Mathesonjess, Carlton7567, Hayleeelmore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ebbinghaus

I felt like adding the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve as important classic study in this field. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanLiberal (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 January 2010‎

87 methods

Can anyone put a finger on why there are 'exactly' 87 methods of improving memory retention? If not, then this factoid should be removed posthaste! 77.59.147.246 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Keith

Replacement image requested

at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Interference_theory. -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Some Queries That Article should address

Decay theory is part of the picture, but there are some questions which the article does not address. From a certain perspective, some of these issues may be addressed within the wikipedia article, but in case they are not, I include them here:

1) Is memory encoded in molecules via some mechanism or not? There was the, once popular (but I believe false), view that memory is somehow encoded within RNA molecules. To the best of my knowledge, this is a completely erroneous view, but I would be interested in hearing other peoples perspective (if there is anyone out there).

2) If memories are encoded within synaptic connections as well as neuronal circuits, and synaptic connections are biochemical/neurochemical in nature, then is it not true that ALL memories are potentially under constant attack from either thermodynamic (entropy increasing) processses, and/or chemicals that tend to destroy the neurochemical foundations of memories (potentially radicals, but I'm not sure) and the brain's own synpatic pruning process, which is designed to simplify and make more efficient the brains own operation? Evolutionary mechanisms within the brain itself could sabotage attempts to have a high level of memory storage.

3) Does the brain contain 'molecular machines' (enzymes, proteins, etc...) that have, as their purpose, the periodic 'renewal' of old memories to ensure that the 'pattern' associated with a memory does not decay? This might explain some of the results of experiments designed to test memory decay theory. There would also be some interesting evolutionary biology/human-genome genetics involved in how protein families ensure that the 'reinforced' pattern of a memory is the same as the original memory (some type of evolutionary similarity recognition algorithm might seem to be involved). It is possible that false memories could result via such mechanisms (though this would possibly be unlikely if more than one memory trace were encoded - and it would be interesting to see how the brain recognises a 'false' memory and rectifies it in a biochemical/neurochemical sense).

4) The role of 'concentration' and 'holographic' memories in decay. It is possible that, for certain 'important' memories (or emotive ones), that the brain stores the same memory trace in several different locations, to be integrated upon recall, or even partial memory traces in several different locations, to be integrated upon recall. Thus, if someone cannot concentrate, they may not be able to recall information which is neurochemically stored within their brain.

5) 'Clustering' of memories (speculative, but probably has some truth to it). It may be the case that the brain is constantly 'declustering' memories (possibly during sleep) so that they are efficiently organised within the human memory system (whatever form that that takes). So clearly sleep deprivation would have the effect of interfering with memory operation, possibly parts of the encoding and then retrieval phases.

6) Polluting chemicals and diseases. It is not difficult to imagine that these could interfere with memory.

7) Death of brain cells. Clearly, this happens with aging (though research, if funded well, could prevent or reduce the extent to which brain-cell/neuron death occurs with aging).

8) Biochemical/Neurochemical Quantification of decay theory. Clearly, decay theory does not act alone (and, in the brain, may only act to a limited degree). But there would still be some way of mathematically quantifying it, to see what memory properties the theory predicts.

9) Clearly, a healthy diet, exercise and generally healthy living would reduce the likelihood of memories being lost with time - and substances called 'nootropics' MIGHT have a positive effect (though many of these do not seem to have been fully tested).

10) The theoretical potential for cybernetic/Genetic Engineering enhancements. Cybernetics COULD be a rapidly evolving field that would integrate human neurons with microelectronics for a foolproof memory (though, by necessity, SOME memories would HAVE to be forgotten as part of file management - or perhaps not depending upon how rapidly technology evolves). GE could also partially improve the biological library of proteins that enhance memory recall IF there is a genetic factor to good memory recall in human beings.

Just some points, which likely have already been made in the literature, which I think ought to be included within the article if anyone can find out about them. ASavantDude (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Letter

The article's lead is able to very clearly explain the basics of decay theory and set up for the article. You also do a good job with bringing in counterpoints and explaining the inconsistencies with the theory. A couple of improvements can be made though. The first would be to add some more information to the lead to better reflect the majority of the content actually contained in the article itself. Currently the article has a focus on the inconsistencies and history and less on the theory itself. Changing the lead to reflect this would strengthen the article. A second improvement would be to add more information about how the original researchers thought decay theory would work in itself. The lead has a great introduction, but diving in deeper in the article would enhance greatly the information already presented as well as give the inconsistencies section more meaning. This would allow the article to be more balanced between positive and negative information. All of this said, I really liked how you were able to do a short but concise history of decay theory. Being able to take a subject that may seem long and complicated and shorten it is a skill, so good job. I may add a similar section to an article I am currently working on enhancing for a class. Good job and keep up the effort! Carlton7567 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Letter

The article did a good job of explaining what the decay theory was and did a very good job at setting up the article. All the sections flowed together and were in an order that made sense. The information made sense but, could have been more simplified when explaining the definition so readers can understand more about what the decay theory is early on in the article. Something that could be improved is adding more about the decay theory in general. The lead makes you believe that the article will be talking all about the decay theory rather than just the inconsistencies which is what I felt like the article was mostly about. Adding more good things about the decay theory would help balance out the article to make room for readers to form their own opinion rather than having most the article focus on the inconsistencies of this theory. I really did enjoy this article and the topic was difficult and was explained well. I want to be able to implement how well the sections were organized and information was presented in my own article. Good job! Hayleeelmore (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Hayleeelmore