INTRODUCTION

The main data of my experimental studies have now been set forth and it is time to consider whether they have any consistent theoretical significance. As everybody knows, there is no lack of theories of memory. Biologists, philosophers and—though, perhaps, to a smaller extent—psychologists have put forward numerous speculations. Biologists, on the whole, have treated memory mainly as a repetitive function and have speedily become immersed in theories of how specific ‘traces’ maybe made and somehow re-excited. Philosophers have naturally tried to find how what is recalled is related to a ‘real’ world and have discussed the validity of the information that is given by recall. Most of the more careful psychological work, especially that which has an experimental basis, has been concerned with special problems in the general field; for example, with the normal course of learning and forgetting; with the influence of special conditions such as position in a series, intensity of stimulation and the like; with classifications of the typical kinds of association and with a study of ‘association strengths’. Psychopathologists have considered prodigies, whether of remembering or of forgetting, and have given detailed attention to the question of the affective basis of recall. The classical theories have often been adequately summarised and I shall make no attempt to describe them here. More recent general psychological theories are still in a fluid state and no brief summary could do them justice. I shall therefore proceed at once to consider how my own results may lead to theoretical conclusions regarding the characteristics and functions of recall.