CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 398Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Storage and retrieval processes in long-term memory

Open access
Shiffrin, R. M., Atkinson, R. C.·1969·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/h0027277
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A theory of human memory is described in which a distinction is made between three memory stores: the sensory register, the short-term store, and the long-term store.Primary emphasis is given to the processes by which information is stored in and retrieved from the long-term store, a store which is considered to be a permanent repository for information.Forgetting and related phenomena are attributed to a failure of the retrieval process, in which the search through some memory area becomes less efficient as new information is placed in it.Storage and retrieval in the long-term store are conceived of as parallel processes, one mirroring the other, and each is divided into three stages for conceptual clarity.The memory trace is viewed as an ensemble of information stored in some memory location, the location of storage determined largely by the components of the ensemble itself.The ability of the system to cope with diverse phenomena is demonstrated by a consideration of a number of selected experimental paradigms.

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 · 10.1037/h0027277

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Generation-Recognition Theory divides memory retrieval into a generation stage and a recognition stage.

    “This theory outlines the stages of memory retrieval, dividing them into the generation stage and the recognition stage.”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Abstract says this paper divides retrieval into three stages, not a generation stage and a recognition stage. In “Retrieval Processes,” it describes recovery, response generation, and a continuing search process; “Recognition and Recall” says separate retrieval mechanisms for recognition and recall are unnecessary. These passages contradict the two-stage account attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The recognition stage involves evaluating the responses generated in the generation stage to determine whether they meet specific acceptance criteria.

    “The recognition stage involves evaluating the responses generated in the generation stage to determine whether they meet specific acceptance criteria.”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The “Response generation” section says recovered information is checked for consistency with the test information and that a response may be withheld while the search continues. This supports evaluating a possible response before accepting it, but the paper places those decisions within response generation; it does not describe a separate recognition stage that evaluates responses produced by an earlier generation stage. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • SALM addresses the limitations of long-term memory modules in current cognitive architectures and has the potential to exceed the adaptability of human long-term memory processing mechanisms.

    “This framework addresses the limitations of long-term memory modules in current cognitive architectures and has the potential to exceed the adaptability of human long-term memory processing mechanisms [29, 30, 31, 32].”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Abstract and Long-Term Store section describe a theory of human long-term memory storage and retrieval. They do not assess SALM, limitations of modules in current cognitive architectures, or whether a new framework could exceed the adaptability of human memory. Page numbers are not supplied for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the recognition stage, generated responses are matched against stored memory traces to see if they align with the specific information originally learned.

    “In the recognition stage, the generated responses are matched against stored memory traces to see if they align with the specific information that was originally learned.”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Response generation section says recognition decisions depend on whether information recovered from long-term storage is consistent with the test stimulus. This supports a comparison with stored information, but the paper describes comparing recovered information with the test information, not matching already-generated responses against memory traces. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the generation stage, individuals attempt to implicitly generate possible responses from memory, such as words, images, or other information associated with given cues.

    “In the generation stage, individuals attempt to implicitly generate possible responses from memory, such as words, images, or other information associated with given cues.”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Retrieval Processes section describes using stimulus clues to search memory for information and deciding whether a desired response has been found. But it says search can be either highly controlled or relatively automatic, so the claim’s description of generation as implicit is not supported as a general rule. The copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. ATKINSON, R. C., BRELSFORD, J. W., JR., & SHIF- FRIN, R. M. Multiprocess models for memory with applications to a continuous presentation task. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1967, 4, 277-300.
  2. ATKINSON, R. C., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. Mathemati- cal models for memory and learning. Technical Report 79, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University, 1965. (Republished: D. P. Kimble (Ed.), Proceedings of the third conference on learning, remember- ing and forgetting. New York: New York Acad- emy of Science, in press.)
  3. ATKINSON, R. C., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motiva- tion: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1968. (a)
  4. BERNBACH, H. A. Decision processes in memory. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 462-480.
  5. BINFORD, J. R., & GETTYS, C. Nonstationarity in paired-associate learning as indicated by a second guess procedure. Journal of Mathematical Psy- chology, 196S, 2, 190-195.
  6. BOUSFIELD, W. A., & COHEN, B. H. Clustering in recall as a function of the number of word- categories in stimulus-word lists. Journal of General Psychology, 1956, 54, 95-106.
  7. BOWER, G. H. A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motiva- tion. Vol.1. New York: Academic Press, 1967.
  8. BRELSFORD, J. W., JR., & ATKINSON, R. C. Short- term memory as a function of rehearsal proce- dures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 730-736.
  9. BRELSFOHD, J. W., JR., SHIFFRIN, R. M., & ATKIN- SON, R. C. Multiple reinforcement effects in short-term memory. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1968, 21, 1-19.
  10. COFER, C. N. On some factors in the organiza- tional characteristics of free recall. American Psychologist, 1965, 20, 261-272.
  11. COHEN, B. H. Recall of categorized word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 227-234.
  12. BALLET, K. M., & D'ANDREA, L. Mediation in- structions versus unlearning instructions in the A-B, A-C paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 460-466.
  13. DAPOLITO, F. J. Proactive effects with independent retrieval of competing responses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1966.
  14. DEESE, J. The structure of associations in language and thought, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press, 1966.
  15. ESTES, W. K. The statistical approach to learning theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
  16. FEIGENBAUM, E. A. Information processing and memory. In Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and proba- bility, 1966. Vol. IV. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
  17. HARLEY, W. F., JR. The effect of monetary incen- tive in paired-associate learning using an abso- lute method. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 3, 141- 142.
  18. HELLYES, S. Supplementary report: Frequency of stimulus presentation and short-term decrement in recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 650.
  19. HINTZMAN, D. L. Explorations with a discrimina- tion net model for paired-associate learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1968, 5, 123-162.
  20. KEPPEL, G. Retroactive and proactive inhibition. In T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior and general behavior theory, Engle- wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
  21. KINTSCH, W. Memory and decision aspects of recognition learning. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 496-504.
  22. HANDLER, G. Association and organization: Facts, fancies, and theories. In T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior and general behavior theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
  23. MARTIN, E. Stimulus recognition in aural paired- associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 272-276.
  24. MELTON, A. W. Implications of short-term memory for a general theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 1-21.
  25. MELTON, A. W., & IRWIN, J. M. The influence of degree of interpolated learning on retroactive inhibition and the overt transfer of specific re- sponses. American Journal of Psychology, 1940, 53, 173-203.
  26. MILL WARD, R. An all-or-none model for non- correction routines with elimination of incorrect responses. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964, 1, 392-404.
  27. MURDOCK, B. B., JR. The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 482-488.
  28. NORMAN, D. A. Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 522- 536.
  29. OSGOOD, C. E. Psycholinguistics. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
  30. PHILLIPS, J. L., SHIFFRIN, R. M., & ATKINSON, R. C. Effects of list length on short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Ver- bal Behavior, 1967, 6, 303-311.
  31. POSTMAN, L. The present status of interference theory. In C. N. Cofer (Ed.), Verbal learning and verbal behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
  32. RUNQUIST, W. N., & FARLEY, F. H. The use of mediators in the learning of verbal paired- associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 280-285.
  33. SCHNORR, J., & ATKINSON, R. C. Repetition versus imagery instructions in the short-and long-term retention of paired associates. Psychonomic Sci- ence, 1969, in press.
  34. THOMPSON, W. J. Recall of paired-associate items as a function of interpolated pairs of different types. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9, 629-630.
  35. TULVING, E. Subjective organization in free recall of 'unrelated' words. Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 344-354.
  36. TULVING, E. The effects of presentation and re- call of material in free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 175-184.
  37. UNDERWOOD, B. J. Interference and forgetting. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 49-60.
  38. UNDERWOOD, B. J. Stimulus selection in verbal learning. In C. N. Cofer & B. S. Musgrave (Eds.), Verbal behavior and learning: Prob- lems and processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
  39. WICKELGREN, W. A., & NORMAN, D. A. Strength models and serial position in short-term recog- nition memory. Journal of Methematical Psy- chology, 1966, 3, 316-347. (Received February 2, 1968)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shiffrin, R. M., & Atkinson, R. C.
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1969-03
Volume
76
Issue
2
Pages
179-193
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/h0027277
OpenAlex
W4252446935
Cited by
398
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
11.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
long-term memory, memory storage, memory retrieval, forgetting, memory traces, sensory register, short-term memory, memory theory

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