Less-than-expected variability in evidence for three stages in memory formation: A response.

Abstract

Robert's (1987, this issue) argument that the observed less-than-expected variability should reduce belief in our three-stage model is rejected Experimenter bias, intentional or otherwise, does not account for the lack of variability The reduced variability can be explained by an effective binomial p greater than that estimated from the data and arising within the experimental paradigm used There appears to be evidence for a natural retention ceiling of 80-85% for chicks trained under this paradigm The explanation for this is not immediately apparent

Research on the neural bases of learning and memory.

“…They suggested that the first of these may represent the cross-over point between STM and ITM processes, as in Figure 3; the second dip would represent the cross-over between ITM and LTM processes. Other laboratories have not reported these sharp dips in response, and doubts have been raised about them (Roberts, 1987; see also the rejoinder by Ng and Gibbs, 1987).…”