We show that several striking differences in memory performance between recognition and recall tasks are explained by an ecological bias endemic in classic memory experiments - that such experiments universally involve more stimuli than retrieval cues. We show that while it is sensible to think of recall as simply retrieving items when probed with a cue - typically the item list itself - it is better to think of recognition as retrieving cues when probed with items. To test this theory, by manipulating the number of items and cues in a memory experiment, we show a crossover effect in memory performance within subjects such that recognition performance is superior to recall performance when the number of items is greater than the number of cues and recall performance is better than recognition when the converse holds. We build a simple computational model around this theory, using sampling to approximate an ideal Bayesian observer encoding and retrieving situational co-occurrence frequencies of stimuli and retrieval cues. This model robustly reproduces a number of dissociations in recognition and recall previously used to argue for dual-process accounts of declarative memory.

We show that several striking differences in memory performance between recognition and recall tasks are explained by an ecological bias endemic in classic memory experiments - that such experiments universally involve more stimuli than retrieval cues. We show that while it is sensible to think of recall as simply retrieving items when probed with a cue - typically the item list itself - it is better to think of recognition as retrieving cues when probed with items. To test this theory, by manipulating the number of items and cues in a memory experiment, we show a crossover effect in memory performance within subjects such that recognition performance is superior to recall performance when the number of items is greater than the number of cues and recall performance is better than recognition when the converse holds. We build a simple computational model around this theory, using sampling to approximate an ideal Bayesian observer encoding and retrieving situational co-occurrence frequencies of stimuli and retrieval cues. This model robustly reproduces a number of dissociations in recognition and recall previously used to argue for dual-process accounts of declarative memory.

We show that while it is sensible to think of recall as simply retrieving items when probed with a cue - typically the item list itself - it is better to think of recognition as retrieving cues when probed with items.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive alignment with human cognitive processes, raising questions about the extent of their similarity to human cognition. This study investigates whether LLMs, specifically ChatGPT, possess metacognitive monitoring abilities akin to humans-particularly in predicting memory performance on an item-by-item basis. We employed a cross-agent prediction model to compare the metacognitive performance of humans and ChatGPT in a language-based memory task involving garden-path sentences preceded by either fitting or unfitting context sentences. Both humans and ChatGPT rated the memorability of these sentences; humans then completed a surprise recognition memory test. Our findings reveal a significant positive relationship between humans' memorability ratings and their actual recognition performance, indicating reliable metacognitive monitoring. In contrast, ChatGPT did not exhibit a similar predictive capability. Bootstrapping analyses demonstrated that none of the GPT models tested (GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4-turbo, GPT-4o) could accurately predict human memory performance on a per-item basis. This suggests that, despite their advanced language processing abilities and alignment with human cognition at the object level, current LLMs lack the metacognitive mechanisms that enable humans to anticipate their memory performance. These results highlight a fundamental difference between human and AI cognition at the metacognitive level. Addressing this gap is crucial for developing AI systems capable of effective self-monitoring and adaptation to human needs, thereby enhancing human-AI interactions across domains such as education and personalized learning.

Conventional intelligent systems based on deep neural network (DNN) models encounter challenges in achieving human-like continual learning due to catastrophic forgetting. Here, we propose a metaplasticity model inspired by human working memory, enabling DNNs to perform catastrophic forgetting-free continual learning without any pre- or post-processing. A key aspect of our approach involves implementing distinct types of synapses from stable to flexible, and randomly intermixing them to train synaptic connections with different degrees of flexibility. This strategy allowed the network to successfully learn a continuous stream of information, even under unexpected changes in input length. The model achieved a balanced tradeoff between memory capacity and performance without requiring additional training or structural modifications, dynamically allocating memory resources to retain both old and new information. Furthermore, the model demonstrated robustness against data poisoning attacks by selectively filtering out erroneous memories, leveraging the Hebb repetition effect to reinforce the retention of significant data.

Memory traces--changes in the memory system that result from the perception and encoding of an event--were measured in pioneering studies by Endel Tulving and Michael J. Watkins in 1975. These and further experiments informed the maturation of Tulving's memory model, from the GAPS (General Abstract Processing System} to the SPI (Serial-Parallel Independent) model. Having current top of the line LLMs revisit the original Tulving-Watkins tests may help in assessing whether foundation models completely instantiate or not this class of psychological models.

An incredible gulf separates theoretical models of synapses, often described solely by a single scalar value denoting the size of a postsynaptic potential, from the immense complexity of molecular signaling pathways underlying real synapses. To understand the functional contribution of such molecular complexity to learning and memory, it is essential to expand our theoretical conception of a synapse from a single scalar to an entire dynamical system with many internal molecular functional states. Moreover, theoretical considerations alone demand such an expansion; network models with scalar synapses assuming finite numbers of distinguishable synaptic strengths have strikingly limited memory capacity. This raises the fundamental question, how does synaptic complexity give rise to memory? To address this, we develop new mathematical theorems elucidating the relationship between the structural organization and memory properties of complex synapses that are themselves molecular networks. Moreover, in proving such theorems, we uncover a framework, based on first passage time theory, to impose an order on the internal states of complex synaptic models, thereby simplifying the relationship between synaptic structure and function.

We show that several striking differences in memory performance between recognition and recall tasks are explained by an ecological bias endemic in classic memory experiments - that such experiments universally involve more stimuli than retrieval cues. We show that while it is sensible to think of recall as simply retrieving items when probed with a cue - typically the item list itself - it is better to think of recognition as retrieving cues when probed with items. To test this theory, by manipulating the number of items and cues in a memory experiment, we show a crossover effect in memory performance within subjects such that recognition performance is superior to recall performance when the number of items is greater than the number of cues and recall performance is better than recognition when the converse holds. We build a simple computational model around this theory, using sampling to approximate an ideal Bayesian observer encoding and retrieving situational co-occurrence frequencies of stimuli and retrieval cues. This model robustly reproduces a number of dissociations in recognition and recall previously used to argue for dual-process accounts of declarative memory.

Large language models (LLMs) are demonstrating remarkable capabilities across various tasks despite lacking a foundation in human cognition. This raises the question: can these models, beyond simply mimicking human language patterns, offer insights into the mechanisms underlying human cognition? This study explores the ability of ChatGPT to predict human performance in a language-based memory task. Building upon theories of text comprehension, we hypothesize that recognizing ambiguous sentences (e.g., "Because Bill drinks wine is never kept in the house") is facilitated by preceding them with contextually relevant information. Participants, both human and ChatGPT, were presented with pairs of sentences. The second sentence was always a garden-path sentence designed to be inherently ambiguous, while the first sentence either provided a fitting (e.g., "Bill has chronic alcoholism") or an unfitting context (e.g., "Bill likes to play golf"). We measured both human's and ChatGPT's ratings of sentence relatedness, ChatGPT's memorability ratings for the garden-path sentences, and humans' spontaneous memory for the garden-path sentences. The results revealed a striking alignment between ChatGPT's assessments and human performance. Sentences deemed more related and assessed as being more memorable by ChatGPT were indeed better remembered by humans, even though ChatGPT's internal mechanisms likely differ significantly from human cognition. This finding, which was confirmed with a robustness check employing synonyms, underscores the potential of generative AI models to predict human performance accurately. We discuss the broader implications of these findings for leveraging LLMs in the development of psychological theories and for gaining a deeper understanding of human cognition.

The Tulving Test was designed to investigate memory performance in recognition and recall tasks. Its results help assess the relevance of the "Synergistic Ecphory Model" of memory and similar RK paradigms in human performance. This paper starts investigating whether the more than forty-year-old framework sheds some light on LLM's acts of remembering.