Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 644

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Levels of Processing in Human Memory

M, Craik Fergus I.·2016·Scientists Making a Difference

Abstract

Throughout my professional career as a cognitive psychologist, I have been interested in the topics of memory, attention, perception, and thinking – how best to characterize them, how they relate to each other, and how they change over a person's lifespan. In everyday life, these mental activities are usually considered to be rather different from each other – remembering meeting someone a month ago seems different from seeing the person in front of you – and this separation is often echoed in psychology textbooks, in which perception, memory, and decision-making are treated in different chapters. Much of the current thinking in cognitive psychology has reacted against this commonsense view, however, suggesting instead that these areas of study are better regarded as closely related and interacting aspects of one general processing system. This latter position was one starting point for the formulation of the levels of processing (LOP) framework for memory research proposed by Robert Lockhart and myself in 1972. The LOP article with Lockhart, plus a later empirical article with Endel Tulving in 1975, are my most-cited pieces of published research, and may therefore be regarded as my best-known scientific contributions to cognitive psychology. Additionally, the general ideas in which the LOP framework was embedded – for example, that remembering should be regarded as an activity of mind rather than a collection of structural “memory traces” waiting to be revived – have always been central to my thinking about memory. Thus, the LOP paper and its spinoffs have been the starting point for much of the work that my lab has produced over the years. In the 1960s, ideas about learning and memory were changing from the belief that the formation of associations between two mental events was the crucial element, to concepts derived from information-processing theories. From this latter point of view, the brain/mind was regarded as a highly sophisticated computer, processing sensory information from the environment, performing computations on that information, and finally translating the products into relevant actions. To accomplish these operations efficiently, the proposed system needed a variety of memory stores, holding information of different qualitative types either temporarily, while it was processed, or relatively permanently, in the case of learned knowledge.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781316422250.028

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 644

Metadata

Authors
M, C. F. I.
Venue
Scientists Making a Difference
Published
2016-07-31
Pages
128-131
OpenAlex
W1936729523
Cited by
644
References
1
FWCI
7.45
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Levels of Processing in Human Memory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9781316422250.028
The paper
M, C. F. I. (2016). Levels of Processing in Human Memory. Scientists Making a Difference. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316422250.028

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.