 |
| Rome, Italy by dalbara |
We’ve all heard of savants like
Stephen Wiltshire who took a 45 minute helicopter ride over Rome and was able
to accurately and beautifully recreate the streets he had witnessed from above,
or Leslie Lemke who played Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto after listening
to the piece for the first time. Then there’s Kim Peek, the inspiration for
Dustin Hoffman’s character in Rain Man,
who has memorized over 9,000 books and reads two pages at a time, one eye on
each page, in eight to twelve seconds. The incredible memorization talents of
these savants are incredibly narrow, and the abilities do not carry over to
every day intelligence. About half of those considered to be savants are
autistic, while the other half has a psychological disorder or other mental
illness. Although the chances of personally knowing a savant are slim, most
people can identify that they have a friend or friend of a friend with a so
called “photographic memory.” The term is used regularly, and sparks envy in
those with average memorization abilities. Here’s the catch: non-savant
photographic memory does not exist.
Only one piece of literature shows
positive implications for a photographic memory. In 1970, Charles Stromeyer III
of Harvard University published research in Nature
that reported one of his students, Elizabeth, was able to memorize a random
pattern of 10,000 dots that was shown to her right eye, and recall and combine
this image the following day with a pattern shown to her left eye. The combination of the two random dot
patterns created a picture. Unfortunately—or some argue, conveniently—no
further tests were ever done on Elizabeth and she went on to marry Stromeyer.
Many have attempted to replicate Stromeyer’s experiment without success.
While scientific literature does
not seem to favor the possibility of a photographic memory, there is one term
that come close. Much research has been
done on a phenomenon called “eidetic imagery.”
Those who possess this ability are often called eidtikers, and are able
to examine a picture on an easel and continue to see the image after the
physical picture has been removed. Unlike an extended afterimage, the image retains
the original color and shape. When asked to describe the image, eidtikers speak
of the image in the present tense with extraordinary detail. Eidtikers can
choose to destroy the image, and have no ability to recall it after they have
done so. The recollections eidtikers describe are far from perfect, although
the individual will discuss the image with great certainty. Eidetic imagery,
however, is a phenomenon that occurs only in children. Approximately two to ten
percent of preadolescents are identified as eidtikers, but nearly no
developmentally normal adults are shown to possess the ability.
Currently, however, two
inexplicable cases are being studied at the University of California. Brad
Williams, known as the Human Google, and “A.J.” claim to remember every day of
their lives. A.J. says her memory is a burden: “Like we’re sitting here talking
and I’m talking to you and in my head I’m thinking about something that
happened to me in December 1982, December 17 1982, it was a Friday, I started
to work at Gs [a store].” Since A.J. and
Williams do not fit the profile for savants or eidtikers, their existence has
prompted controversy in the scientific community.
Memory expert K. Anders Ericsson of
Florida State University believes all incredible memories can be explained by
the use of memory tools. In one study, Ericsson compared the brain scans of
world-class memory performers to individuals with average memories. This
examination of brain anatomy and patterns showed no significant difference
between the brains of individuals like Daniel Tammet who has memorized 22,514
digits of pi and the average individual who knows the minimum 3.14. Ericsson
stated that his work “demonstrated that regular college students can attain
world-class memory performance after extensive practice.” According to Ericcson, this practice should
include use of associations, such as remembering the number 759 as ‘7 minutes
59 seconds for a mile.’ The idea of memorization tools such as these may not be
new, but very few individuals take the time to practice them in the way
Ericsson deems necessary for attaining an excellent memory. His research shows evidence that college
students with several hundred hours of practice were able to memorize an
exceptional number of digits.
In contrast to Ericsson’s research,
A.J. and Williams claim they do not use any memorization tools, nor have they
consciously practiced memorization in the past.
It is new cases such as these that make memory one of the single most
intriguing topics in neuroscience. While most people are fighting to improve
their memory, Alzheimer’s patients are struggling simply to keep it, and a few
rare individuals are wishing to lose it.
Nevertheless, it is certain that we can alter our own memories, and
Ericcson’s research is promising for college students and the general
population alike. Practice and use of
memorization tools may not lead to a photographic memory, but it may help in
remembering day-to-day lists and memorizing important numbers and names.
This article was previously published in The Catalyst, a publication of the Colorado College in the 2011-2012 school year
