There is no capacity limited buffer in the Murdock (1962) free recall data.

Theories of short term memory often include a limited capacity "buffer". Such a buffer contains items which do not decay at all but are overwritten by new data. I show that one of the experiments that fueled the buffer concept, the free recall experiments by Murdock (J Exp Psychol 64(5):482-488, 1962), does not contain such a buffer.

Short term memory bowing effect is consistent with presentation rate dependent decay.

I reanalyze the free recall data of Murdock, J Exp Psychol 64(5):482-488 (1962) and Murdock and Okada, J Verbal Learn and Verbal Behav 86:263-267 (1970) which show the famous bowing effect in which initial and recent items are recalled better than intermediate items (primacy and recency effects). Recent item recall probabilities follow a logarithmic decay with time of recall consistent with the tagging/retagging theory. The slope of the decay increases with increasing presentation rate. The initial items, with an effectively low presentation rate, decay with the slowest logarithmic slope, explaining the primacy effect. The finding that presentation rate limits the duration of short term memory suggests a basis for memory loss in busy adults, for the importance of slow music practice, for long term memory deficiencies for people with attention deficits who may be artificially increasing the presentation rates of their surroundings. A well-defined, quantitative measure of the primacy effect is introduced.

Short term memory may be the depletion of the readily releasable pool of presynaptic neurotransmitter vesicles of a metastable long term memory trace pattern.

The Tagging/Retagging model of short term memory was introduced earlier (Tarnow in Cogn Neurodyn 2(4):347-353, 2008) to explain the linear relationship between response time and correct response probability for word recall and recognition: At the initial stimulus presentation the words displayed tag the corresponding long term memory locations. The tagging process is linear in time and takes about one second to reach a tagging level of 100%. After stimulus presentation the tagging level decays logarithmically with time to 50% after 14 s and to 20% after 220 s. If a probe word is reintroduced the tagging level has to return to 100% for the word to be properly identified, which leads to a delay in response time. This delay is proportional to the tagging loss. The tagging level is directly related to the probability of correct word recall and recognition. Evidence presented suggests that the tagging level is the level of depletion of the Readily Releasable Pool (RRP) of neurotransmitter vesicles at presynaptic terminals. The evidence includes the initial linear relationship between tagging level and time as well as the subsequent logarithmic decay of the tagging level. The activation of a short term memory may thus be the depletion of RRP (exocytosis) and short term memory decay may be the ensuing recycling of the neurotransmitter vesicles (endocytosis). The pattern of depleted presynaptic terminals corresponds to the long term memory trace.

Response probability and response time: a straight line, the Tagging/Retagging interpretation of short term memory, an operational definition of meaningfulness and short term memory time decay and search time.

The functional relationship between correct response probability and response time is investigated in data sets from Rubin, Hinton and Wenzel, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:1161-1176, 1999 and Anderson, J Exp Psychol [Hum Learn] 7:326-343, 1981. The two measures are linearly related through stimulus presentation lags from 0 to 594 s in the former experiment and for repeated learning of words in the latter. The Tagging/Retagging interpretation of short term memory is introduced to explain this linear relationship. At stimulus presentation the words are tagged. This tagging level drops slowly with time. When a probe word is reintroduced the tagging level has to increase for the word to be properly identified leading to a delay in response time. The tagging time is related to the meaningfulness of the words used-the more meaningful the word the longer the tagging time. After stimulus presentation the tagging level drops in a logarithmic fashion to 50% after 10 s and to 20% after 240 s. The incorrect recall and recognition times saturate in the Rubin et al. data set (they are not linear for large time lags), suggesting a limited time to search the short term memory structure: the search time for recall of unusual words is 1.7 s. For recognition of nonsense words the corresponding time is about 0.4 s, similar to the 0.243 s found in Cavanagh (1972).

Proactive interference, retroactive interference--what about self-interference? A new interpretation of the recency-primacy shift.

The recency-primacy shift (RPS) indicates that memory for early list items improves and memory for later items becomes worse as the retention interval between study and test increases. In this contribution, this puzzling experimental finding--memory improving with time--is found to be consistent with a model in which recognition is temporarily interfered with by its own storage process (self-interference). I show that this interpretation can qualitatively better account for the RPS experimental data than can the dimensional distinctiveness model, the only other outstanding explanation of the RPS. Two experimental predictions separate the 2 models: The dimensional distinctiveness model predicts no RPS for 2-item lists, in contrast to self-interference, and as the overall timescale is changed, the dimensional distinctiveness model predicts no difference in the RPS whereas self-interference predicts significant changes.

Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survery-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline.

In a large and detailed survey of scientific coauthorship in pathology, 3500 members of the US and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) were surveyed via the Internet with a final response rate of 22.5%. The results were compared with a previous survey of members of the American Physical Society (APS). The fields are found to be very similar. For example, there is no well-defined way to determine coauthorship: the byline is arrived at without the use of public coauthorship standards according to 90% of respondents (92% in physics). A substantial amount of inappropriate authorship is present in both fields using a variety of authorship guidelines. For example, using the guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" [ICMJE]), the average number of coauthors judged to be inappropriate in pathology on papers with 4 coauthors is 1.0 (1.2 in physics), and using the guideline requiring "direct contributions to scientific discovery or invention," we find 1.6 (1.5 in physics). Finally, it is suggested that authorship guidelines should be constructed by public surveys rather than closed-door committees: an authorship guideline constructed from previous survey feedback (from APS members) was found to be preferable to USCAP members (it received 40% of the vote, the ICMJE received 24% of the vote).

Coauthorship in physics.

In a large and detailed survey on the ethics of scientific coauthorship, members of the American Physical Society (APS) were asked to judge the number of appropriate coauthors on his or her last published paper. Results show that the first or second coauthors are more appropriate than later coauthors about whom there is equal and considerable doubt. The probability of any third and subsequent coauthors being judged as inappropriate is 23% for the APS guideline, 67% for the tighter guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 59% if the guideline requires "direct contributions to scientific discovery or invention". Only 3% of respondents report having personally rejected an undeserving scientist who expected to be an author on the last published paper. Respondents seem to be divided into two non-overlapping populations--those who report no inappropriate coauthorship and those who have a more graduated view.