Explicit and implicit memory

Abstract

The recent explicit-implicit distinction has become ubiquitous in psychology, being aligned with other contra positions such as consciousunconscious, intentional-unintentional, directindirect. Since such distinctions are not always coterminous - or clear-cut - construct-validity is an issue. Nevertheless, these polarities point to classic phenomena of psychology and neuroscience. Freud’s (1891) neuroscience monograph “On aphasia” prefigures crucial themes in cognitive psychology, including psychoanalysis: The inaccessible may be available unconsciously; un- conscious materials may be reflected indirectly (in symptoms, associations, behavior) and may be recovered into consciousness; twilight states (dreams, free-associations, art) may be indirect indicators of unconscious content. Laboratory work extending back to Pötzl (1917) and Fisher (1956; 1960a; 1988) shows that dreams and fantasy can yield reliable and valid measures of inaccessible content and, also, that Freud’s manifest- latent distinction is scientifically viable, with recent psychophysical measurements of sensitivity (e. g., d’) having been made of latent-content sensitivity. This nascent “psychophysics of the third ear” reveals individual differences in sensitivity to latent contents. Laboratory work also shows that memory waxes and wanes over time, suggesting that observed dissociations between indicators of memory may also increase or decrease, or even reverse, over time.