When it comes to memorizing, everyone works in different ways. Some like to write and re-write until its engraved in their head, some like to use the classic notecard technique, and some simply rely on what they’ve retained from class. But a rare few possess the sought after skill of a “photographic memory.” Although there are cases where people are able to attain immense amounts of information from small amounts of review time, the truth about photographic memory is that “It’s impossible to recover images with perfect accuracy.” [source] Therefor, photographic memory likely does not exist.

Alan Searleman, professor of psychology at St. Lawrence University, says that the closest thing to a photographic memory is eidetic imagery. Eidetic imagery is “a material picture in the mind which can be scanned by the person as he would scan a real current event in his environment, or as a potent, highly significant stimulus which arises from within the mind and throws it into a series of self-revealing imagery effects.” [source] It is most commonly found in children and is usually lost around age six. There is also voiced concern that the ability to memorize one thing could lead to the lack of memorizing another. For example, a card shark may memorize the order of cards, but could struggle to memorize faces.

The only documented case resembling photographic memory is a study that was conducted by Charles Stromeyer III in 1970. The test was run on a Harvard student, Elizabeth.“Stromeyer showed Elizabeth’s left eye a collection of 10,000 dots. The next day, he showed her right eye a second collection of 10,000 dots. From those two images, her brain melded together a three-dimension image, known as a stereogram.” [source] Since then, scientists have found no new cases to prove that photographic memory is real. The most compelling evidence to date is all anecdotal cases that merely demonstrate the exceptional ability to recall information, which is not strong enough evidence to prove anything. In 2010, researchers from Knox College and Kansas State University showed that “mental representations about photographs aren’t encoded in the same way that the pictures themselves are recalled.” Essentially, since we do not recovery memory and photographs in the same way, a memory can’t really be photographic. [article]

Although there have been articles – paralleling ideas from that of Knox/Kansas– to provide explanations for why a photographic memory is not plausible, few experiments have been run to test this. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the brain it is extremely difficult to retain all information on the brains activity, especially on specific aspects like memorization. An experiment I could think of that would test this matter would be to have a subject view something for an allotted amount of time, and than have them recall it at certain time intervals in the future, perhaps by drawing it out word for word and organizing in the exact format it was show on the original page. Yet, this is subject to many third variables like cheating by reviewing the page.

In conclusion, though photographic memory may seem plausible, especially in cases of people who have indescribably accurate memories, science points to the likelihood that such a thing doesn’t exist. Although we all wish we had this capability, the closest we will ever get is eidetic imagery (which still sounds pretty good to me).

Other Sources:

Society of Neuroscience. (2013, April 17). Is Photographic Memory Real? If So, How Does it Work? Retrieved from http://www.brainfacts.org/about-neuroscience/ask-an-expert/articles/2013/is-photographic-memory-real/

Does Photographic Memory Exist? (2012, December 19). Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-developed-what-appears-to-be-a-ph/

Is There Such a Thing As a Photographic Memory? And If So, Can It Be Learned? (2007, March 12). Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-such-a-thing-as/