Reminiscence—reply to Dr. Buxton's critique.

Abstract

Our studies did not begin in a search for reminiscence; we found, however, a rise in certain recognition-retention curves which so exactly conformed to what Ballard and after him others had called reminiscence that we adopted the term. Had we been content to present our data merely in terms of changes in averages (complete with critical ratios, of course), there would have been no controversy. It soon became apparent to us, however, that the conventional concept of reminiscence and much current analysis of data was confused; and we were led, step by step, to a strict experimental definition of the phenomenon. We found it necessary to reject a rise in averages as the criterion (but the rise in our studies is very real, not 'apparent' as Buxton says) because such an average rise confounds phenomena moving in opposite directions. We came at length to the definition of reminiscence as recall or recognition of a specific memorandum (i.e., of an 1 In preparing this reply, I am so greatly indebted to Dr. Allen L. Edwards and Professor Maurice C. Moggie that it would be entirely proper to list them as joint authors. In what follows it is the plural, not merely the editorial 'we' which is used. The final draft, however, is mine and I must, therefore, assume responsibility for any errors.