

How Can You Tell a False Memory From a True One? - tokenadult
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/09/elizabeth_loftus_interview_false_memory_research_on_eyewitnesses_child_abuse.html

======
ben0x539
tl;dr:

AG: Is there any way to distinguish a false memory from a real one? EL:
Without independent corroboration, little can be done to tell a false memory
from a true one.

AG: Could brain imaging one day be used to do this? EL: I collaborated on a
brain imaging study in 2010, and the overwhelming conclusion we reached is
that the neural patterns were very similar for true and false memories. We are
a long way away from being able to look at somebody's brain activity and
reliably classify an authentic memory versus one that arose through some other
process.

~~~
M4v3R
I think the biggest giveaway from this article isn't how do you tell a false
memory from the real one (because you can't), but the fact that you can have
false memories at all. You can be 100% sure that something happened and at the
same time be 100% wrong. This happened to me at least once and raises your
humility - you never can be 100% right about something. Memory is malleable
and it can play tricks on you.

~~~
pessimizer
One of my favorite facts is that you can be completely wrong about your
current conscious experience, nevermind your memories. A few neat papers on
this have been written by Eric Shwitzgebel (
[http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/](http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/)
) such as _Why Did We Think That We Dreamed in Black and White?_ and _How Well
Do We Know Our Own Conscious Experience? The Case of Human Echolocation_ , or
even scarier: _Knowing Your Own Beliefs_.

------
tokipin
This should be pretty obvious. In basic terms, it would be extremely
inefficient for the brain to store everything "directly." Meaning all memories
are "reconstructions" to some extent and therefore inherently flighty given
the dynamism of the brain. Said differently, it would be weird if the brain
_didn 't_ take advantage of the very high-level abstractions we use in our
day-to-day for the purpose of efficient memory storage.

Anecdotally, one time I re-played in my head an entire movie after I watched
it (Astro Boy!) as an experimental exercise, and it was clear that as I was
'recalling' it, the line between "reconstruction" and "direct memory" was
extremely blurry, and I could feel my own eagerness to fill in details that
may or may not have occurred.

------
coldcode
I can't tell if I read the article or not.

------
dchichkov
Hmm... At least for normal people memories of events that haven't happened in
real life [but happened in sleep, video games, films, books; or just been
imagined] are certainly distinguishable from memories of events that did
happen in the real world. Even without external references. There's some
metadata present that marks these memories as 'not recorded in the real
world'. And even aside from that metadata, continuity and memory quality
normally gives pretty damn good clues. No need to ask for 'independent
corroboration'. <striked>And, if the opposite was true, you wouldn't be able
to distinguish a memory from your last night dreams from a memory of a
previous day. As simple as that.</striked>

 _Edit_ : rm anecdotal evidence.

~~~
mikeash
Must every article of this nature on HN be accompanied by an idiotic comment
that refutes science with anecdote? I'm getting righteously tired of it.

~~~
dchichkov
Can you be more specific, what particular parts of my comment are you finding
to be idiotic?

I do have formal background in machine learning, computer science and had
taken classes in neuroscience. I am a PhD dropout and I did original research
in computer vision. I have every right to comment on articles written by
specialists on 'false memories'.

~~~
mikeash
I don't really understand why you bring up machine learning and computer
science, since this is a completely different field. Classes in neuroscience
would apply, but that's not all that impressive.

What I find to be idiotic is how trivial you make your contradiction, without
any facts to back it up, adding computerish language to pander to the HN crowd
("metadata", really?), when it's extremely well established that people, with
disturbing frequency, remember things that simply did not happen.

It's fine to disagree, but this sort of straightforward contradiction adds
little to the conversation. It's the internet equivalent of Monty Python's
argument clinic.

~~~
dchichkov
Just check some real, no bullshit, modern research like this:
[https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nis...](https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-
et-al-2011)

Who do you think are these researchers? More ML or more neuroscience?

///These disciplines are very relevant to understanding how memories are
stored. More relevant than neuroscience in fact. Say, if you'd study modern
computer vision, you will have some understanding about mechanisms in the
works of human visual subsystem; about how humans memorize, recognize and
associate images and image sequences. You will not have that understanding, if
you'd study modern (basic) neuroscience.

~~~
mikeash
You _might_ have some _ideas_ about how the brain _might_ work from studying
machine learning. But for the most part, it's going to be like learning about
how fish swim by building a submarine.

~~~
dchichkov
Nope :) You _might_ have some _ideas_ about how the brain _might_ work from
bullshitters, like that 'false memory specialist' who gave interview to slate.

And you actually might learn some real stuff from people like these guys from
UC Berkeley, who can recover video sequences by identifying an ML model with
the visual cortex an then proceeding further and recovering unseen video
sequences from fMRI of V4 area of neocortex.

... Now I only wish I could find a forum where a link to a research
publication like this:

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698) [Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies]

Would not have an order of magnitude less interest than a link to a slate
article like this:

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349590) [ How Can You Tell a False Memory From a True One?]

~~~
mikeash
I don't understand what reconstructing visual experiences from the brain using
scanning equipment has to do with the mechanisms of memory or the possibility
of remembering things that didn't occur. They're completely different things.

The mechanisms of memory are not, as far as I know, well understood. However,
it's well established that people can and routinely do remember things that
did not occur. The why and how may be speculative, but the fact that it
happens is not.

~~~
dchichkov
If you want to understand why this example is so relevant, try to understand
what _exactly_ step-by-step they did to recover these images.

Here is the link again:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031698)
[Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural
movies]

Hint: how can you explain that sometimes, the recovered image contains an
object completely different from that seen by a subject of the experiment?
[say, tree instead of a man]

Hint: can similar experiment be done with the part of the pre-frontal cortex
responsible for associating visual memories with the condition in which these
memories were formed? [imagined, dreamed, seen]

------
andrewtbham
"Then finally you go into therapy and crack through the repression barrier and
out comes this pristine memory. But there really is no credible scientific
support for that notion."

I personally had a repressed memory and it was uncovered in therapy. I am
lucky that my mom is still alive and was able to verify the memories.

It's obvious to me from the snark in her tone like the word "pristine" and the
rest of the article that she is a shill for defense attorneys.

~~~
kvee
I think you and she disagree about what a "repressed memory" is. Maybe what
you call "a repressed memory" she'd call conveniently forgotten. I think what
she takes issue with is the idea that "in order to go on in life, you had to
wall off this memory, because it would be too painful to live with." That you
remembered a memory in therapy does not mean that you necessarily walled it
off previously because it was too painful to live with. Or maybe you did, but
she says there is not yet "credible scientific support." Maybe the research
just hasn't been done yet.

Seems like her attitude towards "repressed memory" is an overly literal
reaction against colloquially popular definitions of repressed memories.
Perhaps her attitude is for the best because by not believing in the notion of
repressed memories we prevent ourselves from having them? Still, isn't that
some form of repression?!

~~~
andrewtbham
"in order to go on in life, you had to wall off this memory, because it would
be too painful to live with."

That was my experience. There were some embarrassing and traumatic events when
I was a child. Throughout the rest of my childhood there were frequent
reminders of the events. If I brought the events up later to my parent's they
wouldn't acknowledge them, and they strongly discourage me from discussing it.
These were significant events that led to my parent's divorce and I repressed
them. When I recalled them later it was very emotional.

With regards to research and scientific proof... I don't know how you would
prove it. How can others verify my experience. It's not easily repeatable.
Even if it were repeatable... how could you prove something like that in an
ethical way without traumatizing people.

