Talk:Recall (memory)

Untitled
This article is really disjointed. I had to delete a whole paragraph which didn't make any sense in the context. Probably needs expert attention

Elronxenu 03:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC) desperately needs expert attention. doesn't actually talk about recollection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.4.243 (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find english wikipedia information on the german concept of anerkennung, this directs to recognition and to recall. This is blatantly incorrect - as recognition is a social phenomena - recognising each others as individuals with rights,beliefs and competences - a theory much used in education og human ressource management(see Axel Honneth). How do we clarify this on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.140.180 (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparent word error
The last sentence of the second paragraph under TOT has the word "culmination" where it appears that the word "cumulation" would make more sense. The latter word appears a couple of paragraphs later in a way that reinforces this suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.99.128 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Face Advantage

 * I am hoping to add a section under Phenomena of memory recall entitled the Face Advantage. Current research is showing a face visual advantage to memory recall over other stimuli and senses. Would this be a good place for me to add my information?Andavis8694 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Andavis8694 and welcome to wikipedia! I think so, yes. If you have good, secondary sources – and please also check WP:MEDRS – then please be bold and write a section about it! With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   13:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

copy paste that might violate copyright?
Chapter "attention" has statemnent "next we considered x", which sounds like it is directly copy-pasted from some research article. I don't have the time and know-how to resolve from wher but I suspect some parts of this article might be illegally copied from elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.173.46 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please make it clearer where you think this material is, ideally by quoting something out of the text here as you havent currently given enough info for me to look for a copyvio but if you facilitate that information I am happy to a web search♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I took a random sentence and googled it. The exact same sentence was on this abstract: . Maybe a plagriarization software should be applied to this page, as it might been copy-pasted from various other places? 128.214.173.46 (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My spot-check has found no additional issues beyond the extensive work placed by a single IP. Every other text match I've found has been a backwards copy. Thank you for locating the issue, 128.214.173.46! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16356329, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222784804_Incentive_level_influence_on_overt_rehearsal_and_free_recall_as_a_function_of_age, and http://www.academia.edu/1028135/Evidence_in_favor_of_the_early-phase_elevated-attention_hypothesis_The_effects_of_letter_frequency_and_object_frequency. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, all of the content added by the contributor who placed this material has proven to be copy-pasted from other sources. I'll conduct a quick spot-check of other material to see if perhaps other sections are likewise corrupt. If I miss anything, please feel free to remove copied content or rewrite it from scratch, working carefully to avoid creating a derivative work. See WP:Copyvio101 for processes and recommendations. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Austin Simonson
The first theory mentions the "Austin Simonson" theory. I have never heard of it, and I have been teaching Memory for a few years. The only hits in google for that name seems copy-paste or direct references to Wikipedia.

Can anyone provide a link to a source mentioning that name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karoch (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I tagged it as citation needed as "there is no such theory, both the citations (3 and 4) given afterwards do not mention any Austin nor Simonson, let alone any such theory. Google Scholar only find very recent references in Chinese papers that repeat wikipedia in bad English (it looks like they just copied wikipedia), MAYBE this Austin is J. L. Austin, but if so it is not clear how he is related to this theory. ALSO it could be synthesis - which wikipedia does not permit." is what I put there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.116 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As there is no support for the "Austin Simonson" name, I replaced it with "two-stage theory", which is how the described theory is usually known. It was presented that way in earlier versions.

Link to Testing Effect
The paragraph:

"Another study done using cued recall found that learning occurs during test trials. Mark Carrier and Pashler (1992) found that the group with a study-only phase makes 10% more errors than the group with a test-study phase. In the study-only phase, participants were given Ai-Bi, where Ai was an English word and Bi was a Siberian Eskimo Yupik word. In the test study phase, participants first attempted to recall Bi given Ai as a cue then they were shown Ai-Bi pair together. This result suggests that after participants learn something, testing their memory with mental operations helps later recall. The act of recalling instead of restudying creates new and longer lasting connection between Ai and Bi.[16]"

is discussing the testing effect. I would like to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph and set up a link to the testing effect page on Wikipedia. The sentence would read: "This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the testing effect."

I think the whole paragraph could be cleaned up, but I think the link is a must.

Thanks,

Kmdoiron (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

yes - agreed! Elizareader (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Factors that affect recall - Attention - grammatical mistakes
Some of the sentences in the second paragraph under "Attention" don't make sense. It's hard to fix them without knowing original intent.

Negative and positive words are better recalled than neutral words that are spoken.

Is the author comparing negative and positive words with neutral words, or spoken and non-spoken negative and positive words with neutral words that are spoken?

Many different ways that attention is focused on hearing what the speaker has to say is the inflection of the presenter’s voice in a sad, content, frustrated sound or in the use of words that are close to the hear.

This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.

The groups were put into the same lecture halls and given the same speakers, but the results came back to determine that the inflection and word choice recalled by the listeners concluded that emotional words, phrases, and sounds are more memorable than neutral speakers.

"The Groups" have no antecedents. The second half of the sentence ("...but the results came back to determine...") is badly worded. The author is comparing "emotional words, phrases and sounds" to speakers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.72.134 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Active recall and testing effect
Active recall and the testing effect articles are very similar and I have recently suggested a merge but they may be better suited in this article, or at least a larger mention. DannyHatcher (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
— Assignment last updated by Bri.ana5050 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)