A Critique of the Atkinson-Shiffrin (As) Mathematical Model of Human Memory

Abstract

Emotions are the anchoring experiences on which psychology is aimed. The challenge of neuroscientists is to clarify how neural nets generate mental states, such as emotive memory. To that end, Atkinson- hiffin (AS) (1950) proposed mathematical algorithms and formulae to describe memory. Our critique of their approach is based on 3 issues: Evolution, Physiology and Emotions. What is missing in the AS mathematical model is a physiologically relevant process for encoding emotive memory. “Meta-physics” is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality i.e. the relationship between energy and matter. ”Meta-chemistry” (“Psycho-chemistry”) could be considered to be the branch of chemistry that deals with mental states emerging from neuro- chemical processes. However, what does “Meta-mathematics” imply? Does mathematics delve into matters of Mind as well as Logic? Neuro-math? Neither the metrics of physics nor the mathematics of Atkinson-Shiffin can credibly characterize the process of recalling Emotive states. Only chemistry can pierce the veil of neurophysiology. For example, emotive states can be instigated by chemical entities, such as “neurotransmitters” (NTs) and recreational drugs. In consideration of this, we propose a biochemical tripartite mechanism involving neurons interacting with their surrounding extracellular matrix (nECM) which serve as “memory material”. Incoming perceptions are encoded with trace metals + neurotransmitters (NTs) ejected by neurons, to form metal-centered cognitive units of information (cuinfo) from which memory is consolidated. The NTs can be considered the effectors and encoders of emotive mental states achieved by the neural net. Regarding the Atkinson-Shiffin approach, we opine: Emotions exceed the grasp of mathematics.