Amid the lesson of speech I turned out to be exceptionally intrigued by a portion of the speculations and did some research. I can’t think about any encounters to use as an example for this post so I did some burrowing. Speech recognition have not right now touched base at a solitary hypothesis of speech discernment which satisfactorily clarifies every single trial perception in a way which makes it obviously better than the various contending speculations and models. None of the hypotheses or models displayed beneath can be considered as the last word in speech observation. Some of them, be that as it may, without a doubt give bits of knowledge into the procedure of speech observation.
The acoustic signal is in itself an exceptionally complex signal, having extraordinary between speaker and intra-speaker inconstancy notwithstanding when the sounds being analyzed are at long last perceived by the audience as a similar phoneme and are found in the same phonemic condition. Further, a phoneme’s acknowledgment fluctuates drastically as its phonemic condition changes. Speech is a persistent un-sectioned grouping but then every phoneme has all the earmarks of being seen as a discrete portioned element. A solitary phoneme in a consistent phonemic condition may fluctuate in the prompts display in the acoustic signal starting with one example then onto the next (e.g. voiced stops could conceivably have voicing amid the impediment). Likewise, one individual’s articulation of one phoneme may harmonize with someone else’s expression of another phoneme but then both are accurately seen. A hypothesis of speech recognition must clarify why this outrageous acoustic inconstancy can bring about perceptual phonemic consistency.
The impression of speech includes the acknowledgment of examples in the acoustic signal in both time and recurrence measurements (areas). Such examples are acknowledged acoustically as changes in adequacy at every recurrence over some undefined time frame.
Most speculations of example preparing include arrangement, exhibits or systems of twofold choices. At the end of the day, at each progression in the acknowledgment procedure a yes/no choice is made concerning whether the signal fits in with one of two perceptual classes. The choice in this way made for the most part influences which following advances will be settled on in a progression of choices. On the off chance that the choice advances are all piece of a serial handling chain then a wrong choice at a beginning period in the example acknowledgment process may make the wrong inquiries be asked in ensuing advances (i.e. each progression might be affected by past advances). Consequently, the prior in the example acknowledgment process that a mistake happens the more noteworthy the odds of an inaccurate choice. A serial handling framework additionally requires an office to store every choice (here and now memory?) with the goal that every one of the choices can be passed to the choice focus when every one of the means have been finished. Plainly, to a great degree complex signal preparing errands, for example, speech observation, could possibly require such a large number of steps that the choice couldn’t be achieved rapidly enough (i.e. handling would not be continuously) and the following speech portion would have touched base before the one being prepared was done. Further, there is likewise the likelihood in a long and complex errand of the memory of prior choices blurring and being twisted or lost. Due to every one of these issues with serial handling methodologies, most speech recognition scholars incline toward at any rate a type of parallel preparing. In parallel preparing all inquiries are asked at the same time (i.e. all signals or highlights are analyzed in the meantime) thus handling time is short regardless of what number of highlights are inspected. Since all tests are prepared in the meantime, there is no requirement for the transient memory office and further there is additionally no impact of early strides on following advances (i.e. no progression is affected by a first step). Numerous scholars incline toward a blend of both parallel and serial preparing of sound-related information. This may be as a progression of parallel preparing banks. A few scholars recommend that newborn children may begin with simply serial procedures and that as their insight into dialect enhances parallel procedures (which mirror that learning) may step by step assume control. This may clarify the moderate speech reaction time of youthful kids when contrasted with grown-ups and proposes that piece of the way toward learning may include the re-association of speech discernment into progressively more effective parallel frameworks.
There are four noteworthy kinds of example acknowledgment hypothesis of significance to speech recognition (Sanders, 1977). Format hypotheses: where input is coordinated to one of a progression of inner standard examples or layouts. The scope of such a framework can be reached out by a procedure known as standardization. Standardization defeats the requirement for a different format for every speaker’s generation of every phoneme in every unique circumstance, as it plays out a change on the information signal which makes the present speaker’s speech fit all the more perfectly into the audience’s layout framework. Sifting hypotheses: where data is gone through banks of perceptual channels to encourage interpreting. Highlight location hypotheses: dynamic choice of data using dynamic neural units or finders tuned to particular examples. Investigation by-union speculations: in view of both inward principles and data gathered from an unrefined examination of the information signal, a normal or plausible example is inside orchestrated and after that contrasted and the info signal. In the event that the match isn’t sufficiently close the incorporated example is changed until the point when a worthy match is accomplished.
Furthermore, speech observation speculations can be thought to be of two kinds or a mix of both (Sanders, 1977). They are inactive or non-interceded hypotheses. These speculations depend on the suspicion that there is a type of direct connection between the acoustic signal and the apparent phoneme. As such, perceptual steadiness is somehow coordinated to a genuine acoustic consistency. These hypotheses tend to focus on finding the character of such steady perceptual prompts and on the ways the sound-related framework may remove them from the acoustic signal. Somehow, these speculations are essentially sifting hypotheses and don’t include the intercession of higher subjective procedures in the extraction of these signs. These higher procedures are limited to settling on a choice in light of the highlights or signals which have been distinguished or separated nearer to the fringe of the sound-related framework.
Dynamic or intervened speculations. These hypotheses, then again, recommend that there is no immediate connection between the acoustic signal and the apparent phoneme but instead that some more elevated amount intercession is associated with which the info design is contrasted and an inside created design.
By and by, in any case, most scholars surrender the likelihood that speech may work as a mix of both dynamic and aloof procedures and some propose that they may even be elective discretionary strategies for observation which may work under specific conditions.

Reference

Sanders, D.A., 1977, Auditory Perception of Speech: An introduction to principles and problems, Prentice-Hall, London.

Despite what many would have you believe, making judgements and forming personal opinions about others is a natural part of our normal social behavior. We are constantly forming opinions and making judgements about everyone and everything around us. While at first glance this may sound like a bad thing, in reality, it is both good and bad. If you were to try a new restaurant and you didn’t find the food very good, you’ve formed a negative judgement about the quality of their product. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is your natural opinion. Alternatively, judgements can also be negative, as we have seen through society’s struggle with issues such as racism, sexism and division of socioeconomic statuses. If you chose not to invite the new girl at work to eat lunch with your group of friends because she is a lesbian, that is not a good type of judgement to be making and it is hurtful. Both the good and the bad judgements we make can affect how we perceive similar things in the future.

Researchers have long studied how we form judgements in an attempt to understand how this plays a role in our reasoning and decision-making choices. Decisions are defined as the process of making choices between alternatives (Goldstein, 2011). Do I go back to the bad restaurant to give it a second chance or do I eat somewhere else? This is a good example of a decision that you must make between alternative options. Reasoning is a bit different in that it is the process of drawing conclusions based on some type of evidence (Goldstein, 2011). The new girl is a lesbian and so that must mean she is a bad person because the bible says she is choosing to live in sin. This is a very common example of how a person uses reasoning based on evidence (the bible) to draw conclusions about others. It is up to your personal beliefs to determine if this is a bad or a good conclusion about this woman.

But how do we form these conclusions? One of the main types of reasoning we use to form our judgements about everything in our lives is inductive reasoning; reasoning based on observations, or reaching conclusions based on evidence (Goldstein, 2011). Inductive reasoning starts with a specific statement that is used to draw a conclusion about a larger more general statement (Goldstein, 2011). These conclusions are not absolute truth, they are indicative of what is possibly true based on the evidence in hand. For example: the coffee I had at Starbucks this morning was terrible. Last time I had coffee at that Starbucks, it was bad too. This must mean that all Starbucks coffee tastes bad.
There is logic to this argument, however, a generalization about all Starbucks coffee shops cannot be made based on the experiences at just one location. Therefore, it is possibly true that Starbucks has terrible coffee, but it is not absolutely or definitely true.

When we make a prediction about what will happen in the future or what we believe to be true based on our observations about what has happened in the past, we are using inductive reasoning. Will my car start in the morning? Well, as long as it is in relatively good condition and hasn’t had any issues in the past, it is a safe assumption that it will. This type of automatic reasoning can happen very quickly and often times we are not even aware that are making these assumptions. If we are not careful these same types of automatic assumptions can be made in negative ways, such as with the example above about the judgment of a new coworker.

As you can see, judgements and opinions about the world around us are highly subjective. However, through a further understanding of how people form conclusions through inductive reasoning, we have gained better insight into why people make the decisions they do. We use inductive reasoning to draw conclusions based on some type evidence or previous experience. These conclusions feed into our decision-making process when faced with choosing between different alternative options. Fortunately, and unfortunately, these previous experiences can lead to very strong opinions and it is up to us to be cognizant of how our past may be shaping our interpretation of things in our present and future conditions.

Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Rebecca Hormann

What to keep in mind while solving a problem

Problems are something that we encounter on a daily basis. Whether it is something simple, like deciding what to eat for breakfast or something complex, like having our car break down in the middle of the highway, we are trained to solve these problems when they come our way. Some are better problem solvers than others but, according to Psychology Today, there are a few basic steps that we should keep into consideration when faced with a problem.

The article tells us that a problem itself is something that is in the way of one achieving their goal. Whether that goal be extremely simple and trivial, like getting out of bed, or something more complex and life-effecting, like getting a job that you want. There are two different types of problems: well-defined and ill-defined. A well-defined problem involves something that has a clear path to the solution. A recipe might be a perfect example of this. One needs food and has all the ingredients, the solution is to follow the recipe to omit the problem. An ill-defined problem is something a little more realistic and complex. Think of a goal that you would like to achieve in your life time. Maybe travel the world, for example. Well first you must get the money to do so. Before that you must find a job in order to get that money. Things grow more and more complex as you break them down and then the matter of time itself comes into play. These types of problems don’t have guidelines.

According to the post on Psychology Today the main steps to solving a problem are understanding the problem, creating a plan, execute the plan and then reflect. I find these steps to be extremely practical and easy to follow… in certain situations. Realistically thinking, many people make a 5 year life plan to achieve their goals… but what if something goes wrong. Suppose you, in 5 years, want to end up married and starting your family. Well what happens if you haven’t even met someone who you would potentially marry and have been hopping around jobs for 4 of those years. It is all and good to have a plan, but we must be open to the fact that plans will not always work out and problems do change over time. What may be a problem today may not be a problem for us in a month because our perspectives change.

The article also talks about how many people jump this first step, they do not stop to understand the problem. This I do find to be very accurate but only in certain, smaller situations. When it comes to life goals and problems we need years to solve, then we do take the time to understand the problems we face. But it is something trivial that angers us in the moment, we most definitely do not stop to understand the logistics of the problem.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201309/how-solve-problems-expert

For me, growing up was difficult. I spent most of my time stuck in the middle of custody battles, going from home to home, and for the most part, being abused by most of these so-called caregivers. It became apparent that because of the animosity that lurked in the air, I would be told elaborate stories that weren’t always necessarily rooted in truth. It became a constant battle to decipher what was truth and what was not; for a child, that is no easy task. As I got older and started focusing on therapy to deal with my traumas, memories started leaking into the foreground that had me questioning how true they really were. Therefore, when we started focusing on memory, I found it both interesting and disturbing at how easily a false memory can be created and began to really wonder about my own past. Were all the terrible things I remembered completely accurate?

After all, memory truly is just a muddied mess of our mental experiences; each one being vulnerable to be influenced by many factors, including our emotions, beliefs, social context and any prior knowledge. Therefore, what we pull from memory can be significantly different from what was encoded initially, as well as what was encoded being completely different to the actual event in question.

Elizabeth Loftus, whom is a celebrated psychologist and researcher of memory, has given us very convincing evidence into how false memories can grow and become mentally embedded in the brain. She states that many false memories can begin with suggestion towards what an individual may remember about an event. This can be referred to as the misinformation effect, which is when a person’s memory for an event is modified by things that happen after the event has occurred. (Goldstein p. 227)  According to Loftus: “Just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence and detail and emotion, it doesn’t mean it actually happened. You need independent corroboration to know whether you’re dealing with an authentic memory, or something that is a product of some other process.” (Shaw) Basically, we need proof that what we remember is even completely accurate!

Misleading or faulty information almost always leads to a false recollection of an event and as time moves forward, our false memory becomes more vivid which allows it to become more believable. This got me thinking about my own memories; especially when I read about an experiment that Ira Hyman, Jr. conducted where he created false memories for a party and proved it is possible to create false memories for early events in a person’s life. “False memories may have even been involved in some cases of “recovered memories” of childhood abuse” (Goldstein p. 241) Due to the factor that I was told so many different stories, it would be entirely possible that some of my “memories” are no memories at all! At least not all of them. While it’s understandable that human brains are imperfect, the extent in which we should trust our own memories is truly questionable. Which leads me to more questions, such as how do we identify these false memories and is it even possible to reverse them?

Works Cited

Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience. Stanford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Shaw, J. (2016, August 08). What Experts Wish You Knew about False Memories. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-experts-wish-you-knew-about-false-memories/

Research findings suggest that memory can be influenced in a number of ways. Errors in everything from sensory information, to encoding, to retrieval can affect an individual’s ability to recall information accurately.  This is particularly important when we look at the role of an eye-witness in a criminal hearing. Eye-witness testimonies play a large role in deciding the outcome of criminal cases. An eye-witness testimony refers to an account given by people, of an event that they have themselves witnessed. These testimonies have a powerful impact on jurors whom decide the fate of people on a daily basis. With that great of an influence, it is important that these testimonies are as accurate as possible. Recent finding however, have raised questions as to exactly how accurate these testimonies really are. As of 2012, DNA evidence has exonerated 341 people in the United States who had been wrongly convicted of a crime. (Goldstein, 2015) Of those individuals, 65% were convicted in cases that included an eye-witness testimony. (Goldstein, 2015) There is a case to be made that there are some deficiencies in eye-witness testimony and they begin with an individual’s ability to recall information, and the interference that may occur.

Contrary to popular belief, memories are not exact replicas of the original event. Two people standing the same distance from an event, my see the event in completely different ways. Perception plays a huge role in how we remember things. Top-down, and Bottom-up processing heavily influence our perception, so it is safe to say that our individual experiences play a role in how we are able to recall information. This often leads to situations where multiple eye-witnesses will have completely different stories. For instance, two people could witness a domestic dispute, and have a different testimony as to who was the aggressor, based on how they perceived the event to occur.

Another factor that can affect the ability of an eye-witness to recall information accurately is conditions, and disabilities. I recently served on jury duty, and the case I was on used an eye-witness testimony. The witness claimed to see the defendant put a black backpack in a garbage can. The black back pack was found by police with drugs and a firearm. The eyewitness testified that the defendant was the person they saw put the backpack in the trash can. It was however dark outside, and the eyewitness wore glasses, and the defense attorney argued that it was impossible to actually see the suspects face. The eye-witness eventually admitted that they hadn’t had a clean look at the suspects face. The eye-witness pointed out that they frequent the area, and the suspect shared “a lot of similarities” with the individuals whom usually hang out in that area. The eye-witness let their personal experiences insert bias into their testimony, but it could also be argued that being dark outside, and having vision issues also played a role.

There have been countless examples showing that eye-witness testimony is not as reliable as once was thought. Numerous convictions have been overturned due to advances in technology and the use of DNA. As we begin to better understand memory and how it works, we are finding that memory is not an exact copy of what has occurred. Taking that into consideration, we must look at eye-witness testimony not as a finite answer to what has occurred, but as an unintentionally biased account from an individual perspective.

Goldstein, E. B. (2015). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience. Stamford: Cengage Learning.

In my previous post I discussed an episodic memory that I re-live almost every night. The memory is of my high school lacrosse championship game. For me this memory is extremely vivid and detailed. So detailed I remember the dream that I had the night before, I remember the people I saw as I walked out onto the field, I remember plays that took place down to the shoe’s one of the other players was wearing. I couldn’t put my finger why this memory was so vivid until reading chapter nine in our text book. This memory is a flashbulb memory.

A flashbulb memory is a “memory for the circumstances surrounding shocking, highly charged events” (Goldstein 214). Think of movies based in older times, someone is giving a speech and you hear that sound of the glass cracking and then see a big bright light popping up. The picture that is taken from that is a vivid memory that cannot be forgotten. This is where the name “flashbulb memory” comes from. Emotion is very highly linked with flashbulb memories. This can explain why many of us have some of the same flashbulb memories. For me another big flashbulb memory that a lot of people also have is the September 11^th attacks in 2001. I was in school, in health class and the loud speaker came on. Then the teacher turned on the TV in class to the news. We watched everything happen. We were eventually sent home and I remember almost everything that happened the rest of that day. I can confidently say that a large percentage of people old enough to understand what was going on have a flashbulb memory of it.

Emotions plays a major role in creating flashbulb memories. This can explain my memory of the lacrosse game, I had and still have strong emotions for that specific game and it so it stuck much better. Studies have linked strong emotions to the amygdala when it comes to memory.  When patients were show emotionally charged words their amygdala’s were firing at a much higher rate than with non-emotional words. In another study they found that subjects with a healthy amygdala had enhanced memory of an emotional part of a story, while a subject with a damaged amygdala did not have an enhanced memory for the emotional part. It would seem that for our memory to be stronger for something we need to get our amygdala firing.

Looking back on a lot of the extremely vivid memories I have, they were all very emotionally charged. My lacrosse game or games, the 9/11 attacks, the first time I met my girlfriend all had an emotional connection. These flashbulb memories were almost etched into my brain with the sound of that cracking glass on the camera. Now all I have to do is make my studying material for tests emotionally charged and I should have a great memory for my tests.

References

Goldstein, E.B. (2015). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience (4^th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

In the Air Force, pilots face the difficult task of identifying targets in radar images and deploying unmanned drones to those targets. The pilots endure hours of training in order to be able to identify these targets in the complex images. In those training sessions, researchers have found that the pilots’ ability to accurately identify targets declines within twenty minutes. To reduce training time and combat the decline in accuracy, the Air Force has turned to transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS).

Andy McKinley and his fellow researchers at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio have found that not only does thirty minutes of transcranial direct current stimulation cut the pilots’ training time in half, but it also assists in the endurance of their accuracy.  Similar to transcranial magnetic stimulation in which subjects receive magnetic pulses into target areas of the brain, TDCS involves mild electrical currents of two milliamperes. By administering these mild currents, pilots’ accuracy times went from a steady twenty-minute decline to an increased accuracy for forty minutes. Because TDCS increased their accuracy, the pilots’ training sessions were ultimately reduced. (Fields, 2011)

Since transcranial direct current stimulation had such a positive effect on pilots, imagine the wonders it could do for others. For instance, if TDCS became available for college students, they would feel more comfortable when faced with quizzes and exams. They would be able to learn quickly and more sufficiently. Additionally, there may be extended benefits that improve their alertness, moods, and memory.

If transcranial direct current stimulation can help accelerate pilots’ ability to learn, what else can it do? The possibilities are endless. Fortunately, studies are still being conducted on the effects of TDCS on the body and brain. Though it is an invasive, inexpensive procedure, it still has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Fields, R. Douglas. (25 November 2011). Amping up brain function: Transcranial stimulation shows promise in speeding up learning. Retrieved on 15 April 2018 from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/amping-up-brain-function/

The amount of times I have heard, “Do not blame your partner for your past relationships” is so redundant. Yet it is only after we learned about exemplar theory that I found it worth repeating for the sake of questioning. Exemplar theory is the concept that we have stored examples of the category we have encountered. So, in regards to relationships the exemplar theory is all of our past romantic experiences placed into one general category. Should we be using exemplar theory with our relationships?

According to the book, Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach, “Applying this distinction to general lay relationship theories, it is quite conceivable that people use exemplars that consist of specific past relationships or patterns they have observed, or been involved with, to compare and contrast with their ongoing relationships experiences.”

If we are in a new relationships and we happen to see ‘red flags’ or things that we know are not good for us, exemplar theory may be a handy tool to have. But what happens when we spend so much time comparing to the past that we fail to create the now? I have found in many that this creates an inability to create new experiences and therefore further adds to the narrative of exemplar theory and therefore, their ongoing relationship experiences remain the same and unchanging.

Though exemplar theory may be helpful in many areas and facets of our lives, I cannot help but wonder if it may cause unnecessary struggle with our personal relationships. When measuring our relationships with another human being, it is near impossible to compare one relationship to the other as each one has to some degree a unique and individual facet. We can say it is possible to have relationship patterns but it makes one wonder if those patterns stem from exemplar theory and if instead, we went into relationships with no point of reference we may be better off.

References:
Fletcher, G. J., & Fitness, J. (1996). Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

Many of us probably had some trouble solving the word problem in chapter 12 this week, one possible cause of this was a term we learned just before being introduced to the problems, functional fixedness. Functional fixedness is the inability to use an object as anything other than its initial purpose. For example, it might be difficult to reach something off the top shelf when we only have a chair and want a ladder. What some might not realize is that they can climb on top of the chair having the same effect as a ladder. As we have seen functional fixedness can have effects on your daily life but can it have effects on problems that are even more complicated? Functional Fixedness Stops You From Having Innovative Ideas explains how functional fixedness might be more detrimental than we thought. Yet it isn’t all bad, this fixedness acts as a short cut to solve problems we’ve faced before and solve them faster. (Harpley, 2017) This same short cut is what prevents us from making new ways to solve the same problem. Why would we create a new way to get something off the top shelf if we already know a ladder can solve that problem? A five-year-old hasn’t had time to learn this short cut, so their ability to innovate would be better than an adult much to their demise. While I was attempting to solve the tower of Hanoi problem I had initially moved on after only making three moves since I couldn’t figure out what to do from there. I had created this image in my head that a small piece could only go on top of the medium piece but once I realized I could put it on the large piece and freed a space for the medium piece, I was able to progress with the problem and eventually solve it. Having an idea of an object set in stone can be very taxing on how we solve problems. If you are in a position where you have to come up with innovative ideas to solve old problems in new ways, practicing these problems are the way to go. It’s a muscle we didn’t even know we could exercise.

Works Cited

Harpley, A. (2017, July 30). Functional Fixedness Stops you From Having Innovative Ideas. Retrieved from Nielsen Norman Group: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/functional-fixedness/

I’d like to share an eyewitness memory. However, this has nothing to do with what you typically associate an eyewitness memory with. Usually, when you hear “eyewitness”, you think of a courtroom and a criminal. My memory, which is somewhat faulty, has to do with a car accident I witnessed. Of course, as soon as I saw it happen, I called 911. And as I’m sure you probably know, when you call 911 to report anything, they ask for your name and phone number so they can reach you later if they have questions you may be able to answer.

I was sitting in the bank parking lot talking on the phone with my mom who had recently woken up from surgery. I wasn’t really paying attention to the hundreds of cars cycling through the adjacent intersection. That was until I heard the awful screech of tires desperately trying to bring a speeding car to a dead stop. I looked up as I heard that and I remember seeing the oncoming car hit a car making a left turn. The oncoming car was going so fast that when it hit the turning car, the turning car acted as a ramp. The oncoming car went over the turning car and flipped in the air and landed on its roof. Everyone stopped and those closer to the upside down vehicle ran to the driver’s aid.

At the time 911 called me back, I was unable to correctly call the actual sequence of events. All I could remember was the impact noise and the crash sound the oncoming car made when it landed. I also missed the most important detail at the time, which was who was at fault. I later remembered glancing up at the traffic lights because the noise of the traffic slowed. I had realized the lights I could see were red but there was someone waiting to turn left that was stuck in the intersection. As they were trying to get out of the way, I guess the oncoming car saw the red light at the last second and that’s what happened. Even though insurance rules state that whoever hits the other car is technically at fault, they want to know what actually happened.

This gap in memory is partially due to the trauma of the event. A common symptom of PTSD is the failure to recall certain details of an event for a period of time. I also believe the gap could be from bias. We subconsciously know what a law enforcement person wants to hear in regards to a report of an accident… Who is at fault. So my brain was scrambling to recall that information and in an effort to do so, all I could focus on was the moment of impact. I wanted to place blame but I wasn’t sure. I ended up telling the person I only saw the aftermath. Overall, our memory isn’t reliable all of the time. It actually really isn’t very reliable when it needs to be, yet we can remember the details of our grandmother’s wallpaper in her bathroom. Also, the fact that we recall memories from the last time we recalled them, I think, makes them even less reliable. I know it is easy for a person’s words and emotions to pull at our heartstrings in a courtroom, but I don’t think even the improved eyewitness testimony should be given as much weight as it is.

References:

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm