Photographic memory

  • Thread starter decibel
  • Start date
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
but in the eye example it {what?}is definately analogous!{to what?} If that can be expressed in such a way..
You read my eye story?

Let me just explain the 'fire together wire together' concept a little further, I don't mean to confuse people.

Where I got the concept is in the development of vision. At the back of the eye are receptors which pick up a signal, a photon, all these receptors activate neurons. The neurons bundle together and go through the blind spot to the brain. In the brain they reorganize themselves on an area of the brain which will translate the signal to an image in the mind. But how do the bundled neurons reorganize themselves in the brain to make sense??

Here is where the fire together wire together concept comes in.

Experiments have been done in infants, where a single eye was covered with a cloth in the first few years of life. The neurons in the brain for this eye will die! The neurons in the other eye, receiving visual input will actually develop normally.

If two neurons don't fire together, it means the are not next to each other in the eye, the connection is lost. If two neurons DO fire together, it is very likely that they are located in the same proximity on the eye, a connection is reinforced.

I hope that explains.
Here the fire together actually means neurons in the same proximity (at the same time), where the layout of neurons in the eye needs to be replicated to the layout of the same neurons in the visualization part of the brain.

So you are saying the firing together is not at the same time, it is not serial, but is synchronous??
 
6,171
1,275
I have, at this point, absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

Let's try this: explain to me what you think a seizure is?
 
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
you were commenting on the fire together wire together concept, that the wiring only happens when neurons fire in a give and take way.

What I pointed out is that there is also communication between neurons not firing in a give-take way, where neurons which fire NEXT to each other at the SAME TIME will wire more strongly to the part of the brain which perceives vision, rather than two neurons next to eachother than don't fire at the exact same point in time.

I am not sure if this is a special vision-development mechanism or actually occurs generally with neurons. I believe this is a general occurance, since neurons develop together in bundles right? They are not independent.

A seizure is the uncontrolled firing of the neurons, overactivity, which in turn overactivates other neurons it shouldn't (maybe leaking effect?) thus creating a run-away effect. I am not an neurobiologist, I just recently read a book chapter about developmental biology :P
 
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
also the catch phrase probably applies to the situation where one neuron is connected to two other neurons. The one neuron can relay its signal to either both or only one.

This is what it says along side the figure in my book:

Synapse modification and its dependence on electrical activity.
Experiments in several systems indicate that synapses are strengthened or weakened by electrical activity according to the rule shown in the diagram. The underlying principle appears to be that each excitation of a target cell tends to weaken any synapse where the presynaptic axon terminal has just been quiet but to strengthen any synapse where the presynaptic axon terminal has just been active. As a result, "neurons that fire together, wire together." A synapse that is repeatedly weakened and rarely strenghened is eventually eliminated altogether.
Any catch phrase should not be taken too literally, but in my opinion it describes the situation pretty well..
 
6,171
1,275
Originally posted by Monique
you were commenting on the fire together wire together concept, that the wiring only happens when neurons fire in a give and take way.
OK. Here is one place you misunderstood me. I did not say wiring only happens in a give and take way. I said wiring happens when firing happens in series. A signal gets from one place in the cortex to another neuron by neuron. Neuron #1 fires. It gives off neuro transmitters that stimulate neuron #2 to fire. No.2 fires. It gives off neuro transmitters that stimulate neuron #3 to fire. On so on, untill the signal gets to some other part of the brain that can use it as information. This is what I mean when I say they fire in series. One fires after another. The give and take is a different thing that I will explain.
What I pointed out is that there is also communication between neurons not firing in a give-take way, where neurons which fire NEXT to each other at the SAME TIME will wire more strongly to the part of the brain which perceives vision, rather than two neurons next to eachother than don't fire at the exact same point in time.
So are you talking about neurons that are simply in close physical proximity without being at all connected?
I am not sure if this is a special vision-development mechanism or actually occurs generally with neurons. I believe this is a general occurance, since neurons develop together in bundles right? They are not independent.
I don't know how neurons develop. I just know about how they communicate with each other once they are developed.
A seizure is the uncontrolled firing of the neurons, overactivity, which in turn overactivates other neurons it shouldn't (maybe leaking effect?) thus creating a run-away effect.
This is where the give and take plays a part. Any given neuron is connected to several others. When neuron A fires it could cause any one of the several it connects to to fire. It makes a choice. It sends neuro transmitters to all of them. Most of these neuro transmitters carry the message "Don't Fire!" Only one carries the message to "Fire and pass it on!" In this way the signal finds a path from among billions of billions of choices. At any given time there are billions and billions of signals going all over the place in the brain. It requently happens that two or more signals want to use part of the same path at the same time. They don't. They are courteous. One goes, then the other goes. Give and take. (Maybe not the most accurate term but lets use it for now to distinguish from "in series"). Damaged neurons screw up the signals they recieve and screw up the signals they send out. This results in them telling all the neurons down the line to let the signals through all together, at the same time. They do. These signals tell more neurons to fire at the same time. They do. The number of neurons all firing at the same time increases exponentially. The goal of the original signal is completely derailed and all kinds of neurons are firing, all at the same time, completely without purpose. This hypersynchronous firing can stay limited to one ciruit, or it can spread to others. In the worst case scenario it spreads throughout the whole brain. (This is, in fact, the only known instance of a person using 100% of their brain - it's not pretty). The frequency at which all the neurons are firing can actually be picked up with electrodes in many cases (if the activity gets close enough to the surface). The amplitude of seizure activity is many times the amplitude of normal brain waves.

Sorry this is so long.
 
6,171
1,275
Just read what you were posting while I was writing:

"The underlying principle seems to be that each exitation of a target cell tends to weaken any synapses where the presynaptic axon terminal has just been quiet but to strengthen any synapse where the presynaptic axon terminal has just been active. As a result "neurons that fire together, wire together"

I agree with everything here except boiling it down to the inaccurate "catch phrase".

The catch phrase should be: neurons that fire in series tend to create enduring circuits. It doesn't rhyme but if rhyming causes you to distort the facts, dont rhyme.
 
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
OK. Here is one place you misunderstood me. I did not say wiring only happens in a give and take way. I said wiring happens when firing happens in series. A signal gets from one place in the cortex to another neuron by neuron. Neuron #1 fires. It gives off neuro transmitters that stimulate neuron #2 to fire. No.2 fires. It gives off neuro transmitters that stimulate neuron #3 to fire. On so on, untill the signal gets to some other part of the brain that can use it as information. This is what I mean when I say they fire in series. One fires after another. The give and take is a different thing that I will explain.
Give and take/ serial, different words, same concept. Wiring happens when a signal is transferred from one neuron to the other, one will give the other take = serial, right?

So are you talking about neurons that are simply in close physical proximity without being at all connected?
Yes, you must be aware that neurons in the brain are not distributed randomly and that they actually follow paths together?

I don't know how neurons develop. I just know about how they communicate with each other once they are developed.
Well, the brain remodels throughout life right? We don't gain new neurons, but new connections can still be made.

It frequently happens that two or more signals want to use part of the same path at the same time. They don't. They are courteous. One goes, then the other goes. Give and take. (Maybe not the most accurate term but lets use it for now to distinguish from "in series"). Damaged neurons screw up the signals they recieve and screw up the signals they send out.
This really doesn't work for me. Neurons being courteous? Yes, because they need to depolarize before they can relay another signal. Seizures are caused by neurons which don't reset themselves right? I can definitely understand where you are coming from and I think we are on the same wavelength, but the way you distinguish between serial and give/take is really a fine line..
 
6,171
1,275
I can definitely understand where you are coming from and I think we are on the same wavelength..."
As far as I can tell we seem to understand the neurons to be working in the same way.

The confusion is about language. If you don't use words as precisely as you possibly can when it comes to something as complex as what happens in the brain, you can end up being incomprehensble.

The primary distinction I have been trying to make is between "firing together" and "firing in series".

I see, now, why this inaccurate "neurons that fire together, wire together" seems acceptable to you: it was presented in your text book.
 
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
OK: in your wordings: neurons that fire in a give and take way won't result in a tighter wiring and neurons that fire in series WILL result in a tighter wiring? ((that is the issue))

I'm really sorry, but first I can't make the distinction firing together one after another and firing in series, it means the exact same thing to me, I don't quite understand the point of the seizure example, it is just an example of uncontrolled relaying of the signal.

Maybe you are thinking macro and me micro.. you are thinking about a string of signals that goes from A to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 to B. I am just thinking about a single synaptic junction.
 
6,171
1,275
Originally posted by Monique
OK: in your wordings: neurons that fire in a give and take way won't result in a tighter wiring and neurons that fire in series WILL result in a tighter wiring? ((that is the issue))
No, this is not my wording.
I'm really sorry, but first I can't make the distinction firing together one after another and firing in series, it means the exact same thing to me, I don't quite understand the point of the seizure example, it is just an example of uncontrolled relaying of the signal.
That's OK then. Don't strain yourself.
 
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,104
63
You must agree that neurons which interact with each other will grow a tighter affinity, basic process of learning.. (don't say you can also have negative interactions please..) anyway..
 
47
0
Even better

Learning to become a genius would be more favorable than learning to have a photographic memory!

Those "genius" people annoy me sometimes (I have a lot of them in my school) . . . they (not all cases) don't take any notes, don't do any problems, and don't actively participate . . . yet they still achieve very high (this is a very pronounced stereotype).

:wink:
 
Re: Even better

Originally posted by Integral0
Learning to become a genius would be more favorable than learning to have a photographic memory!
Those "genius" people annoy me sometimes (I have a lot of them in my school) . . . they (not all cases) don't take any notes, don't do any problems, and don't actively participate . . . yet they still achieve very high (this is a very pronounced stereotype).
:wink:
Humm, don't know what you think a Genius really is, but "effective parrotage" isn't that.

(most of the historically recognized characters, seen as "Genius", have Advanced Humanities knowledge base, forward, past where they were, at that time......any of your students done that?)
 
emh26
I think I have a photographic memory but when I research it, many websites and articles claim it's all a myth.Artman's example of the kid at church camp sounds like me, I can recall full pages of words. A couple of days ago, I had an English prelim and had to write two essays in an hour and a half. The night before, I learned these essays word for word so I could write them out the next day in a quicker time. I did this by looking at them, and remembering the paragraphs in my head, so I would have a visual image when I went into the prelim. The only thing is, I couldn't just glance at them and know them instantly it took a couple of times looking at the sheets for a minute or so, and I'm not really sure if this counts as having a photographic memory or not. To be honest, the internet isn't really much help in this case.
 
kokab
well. I hve photgraphic memry in Numbers, and 75%in other stuff, whn i luk at any numbr, dsnt mattr how many digits, i jst need 2 luk at e number maximum 3 sec, and thn i just knw th numbr, evry1 in ma class is scard of me haha, dey dnt open their code locks infrnt of me hehehe.....

Last tym thre ws e girl hu ws opening her locker, n i ws standin at e bck, I didnt mean 2 check her code, bt whn she opend it, i jst saw th numbers, and i still remmbr it, bt i thnk its not good, coz i wnt 2 4gt htht code, id nt wanna remmbr it, bt i cant forget....i´ve tried alot nt 2 remmbr it...bt it didnt help....

any of ya hve e idea how 2 frget numbrs? haha
 
542
44
How do you know if you have a photographic memory? It seems like people always know for sure "I know this guy who has a photographic memory..."
I can look at a picture and after I'm done looking at it, I can picture it in my head again. Everyone can do that. But what exactly qualifies as "photographic memory"? Can you remember a list of items? I can remember a few. If I can only remember 5, my memory is not photographic and if someone else can remember 6, he's over the threshold that makes his memory photographic?
Attributing photographic memory to people doesn't sound like an exact science. Sounds like it's based more on the opinion of who's currently talking about it.

Edit: Oh, didn't realize Isaac Newton above me bumped this 2 year old thread.
 
kokab
How do you know if you have a photographic memory? It seems like people always know for sure "I know this guy who has a photographic memory..."
I can look at a picture and after I'm done looking at it, I can picture it in my head again. Everyone can do that. But what exactly qualifies as "photographic memory"? Can you remember a list of items? I can remember a few. If I can only remember 5, my memory is not photographic and if someone else can remember 6, he's over the threshold that makes his memory photographic?
Attributing photographic memory to people doesn't sound like an exact science. Sounds like it's based more on the opinion of who's currently talking about it.

Edit: Oh, didn't realize Isaac Newton above me bumped this 2 year old thread.
wts crackin man!?jst chill!

u cn go 2 google n take e number test and see wht u get, u myt also be Albert Enstien, u neva knw? if u cn rmmbr tngs and ya dnt thnk dt ya dnt ve photographic mmry, thn leave it? whts e prob man? by e wy dnt be tht rude!
cn u get 20 digits,if u luk at tht 3 sec? wht i said ws dat i hve photographic mmry only in Numbers!!! bt 75%in othr stuff dpnding upon certain thngs!
 
542
44
wts crackin man!?jst chill!

u cn go 2 google n take e number test and see wht u get, u myt also be Albert Enstien, u neva knw? if u cn rmmbr tngs and ya dnt thnk dt ya dnt ve photographic mmry, thn leave it? whts e prob man? by e wy dnt be tht rude!
cn u get 20 digits,if u luk at tht 3 sec? wht i said ws dat i hve photographic mmry only in Numbers!!! bt 75%in othr stuff dpnding upon certain thngs!
Where have you been going on the internet where this kind of shorthand typing is acceptable?
 
kokab
Where have you been going on the internet where this kind of shorthand typing is acceptable?
This topic is related 2 Photographic Memory, Not my shorthand typing!!!!!!!!!!
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,336
1,941
This topic is related 2 Photographic Memory, Not my shorthand typing!!!!!!!!!!
PF rules require legible writing. You agreed to these rules.

"In the interest of conveying ideas as clearly as possible, posts are required to show reasonable attention to written English communication standards. This includes the use of proper grammatical structure, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. SMS messaging shorthand, such as using "u" for "you", is not acceptable."

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,336
1,941
It's all right, I have a basic understanding of Chat. I've painstakingly translated kokab's post:

Well I have a photographic memory in numbers and 75% of other things. When I look at any number, it doesn't matter how many digits, I just need to look at the number for a maximum of 3 seconds and then I just know the number. Everyone in my class is scared of me. :smile:. They don't open their code locks [sic] in front of me.

Last time there was a girl who was opening her locker and I was standing behind her. I didn't mean to check her code but when she opened it I just saw the numbers, and I still remember it. I think it's not good because I want to forget the code; I didn't want to remember it, but I can't forget it. I've tried a lot of not to remember it but it didn't help.

Do any of you have an idea how to forget numbers? :smile:
 
kokab
PF rules require legible writing. You agreed to these rules.

"In the interest of conveying ideas as clearly as possible, posts are required to show reasonable attention to written English communication standards. This includes the use of proper grammatical structure, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. SMS messaging shorthand, such as using "u" for "you", is not acceptable."

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374
ok..
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,336
1,941
What is the problem? Ease up.

You can go to Google and take a number test [sic] and see what you get. You might also be Albert Einstein, you never know. If you can remember things and you don't think that you don't have a photographic memory, then leave it. What's the problem? by e wy [sic] don;t be that rude!

Can you get 20 digits if you look at that for 3 seconds? What I said was that I have a photographic memory only in numbers. But for 75% of other stuff, it depends on certain things.
10 char
 
kokab
I dont know, Ask Him/Her!

He is th one who replied 1st to my Post
 

Related Threads for: Photographic memory

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
16K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
Top