The General Gist of False Memories
Duke University neuroscientists have found a distinction between memories for specifics versus memories for the overall gist of an event. The latter, the overall impression we have of something, tends to be the memory that is more often false.
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Mind
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Which do you trust more? A memory of a dinner party where you specifically recall sitting next to your pal Jake? Or a memory that it was just a fun time?
Duke University neuroscientists say that we’d trust both memories, a lot…even though the general impression type memories are more often false.
Researchers tested the memories of subjects using brain imaging through fMRI. They found that when subjects had high confidence in memories that were true, there was increased activity in their medial temporal lobe, at the base of the brain – the area that processes details of an event.
But when subjects had high confidence in memories for things that had never happened, they showed more activity in the frontal parietal network, at the top of the brain. An area that processes the overall feeling of an event.
As we age we tend to lose the ability to recall specifics but we do remember general impressions, however these are the ones that are often false…hm, how unfortunate.
Alzheimer’s patients tend to be different however, they lose both kinds of memories equally – this might be a useful tool for early diagnosis, the Duke researchers say.
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
