Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High-Tech Glasses Help Improve Memory

Posted by timothy on from the unless-you-forget-where-they-are dept.

unassimilatible writes "MIT will reportedly announce new high-tech glasses which they claim will improve memory by up to 50%. The spectacles are implanted with a CPU that sends messages in the form of light to a mini TV screen on the glasses. The messages - like someone's name, or a word like keys or medicine - flash before your eyes at 180th of a second. Pardon me, but I'll wait for the reviews, since I am still smarting from buying those X-ray glasses in the back of magazines." These "memory glasses" were also discussed at the recent International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

2 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. "Failed Subliminal Programming" by Ieshan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Er, well, no.

    "Flash Subliminal Programming", as you call it, isn't a completely failed research area - assuming you're talking about subliminal priming. Priming is the term used to refer to an experience or procedure that brings a particular concept to mind (see Kunda, 1999, Social Cognition).

    There have been many studies which demonstrate the effects of subliminal priming - in a particularly nice one, subjects were shown either 0, 20, or 80% "hostile" prime words - each for 50 ms - followed by a line of Xs to mask the prime. A control group identified less than 1% of the words. Yet, when asked to rate the behavior of a character in a story, people who saw more Hostile Primes rated the actions as more hostile or aggressive (Bargh and Pietromonaco, 1982).

    Mere Exposure experiments have been done (Bornstein and D'Agostino) with durations as little as 5 ms. Mere exposure is another interesting phenom - that familiarity breeds liking (see Bornstein 1989 or Zajonc 1968 for reviews).

    I just thought I'd babble for a few. :)

  2. sorry, advertisers can just keep dreaming by lyonesse · · Score: 5, Informative

    i'm one of the authors on the paper, and you should check out the section on "miscues" for why this doesn't work.

    subliminal cueing works like this: let's say you teach somebody some name-and-face pairs -- "anne" and "becky". then you show them anne's face and subliminally cue with "anne", and you can improve the person's likelihood of remembering that name.

    but let's say you "miscue" -- you show them anne's face but subliminally cue with the name "becky". they are *not* likelier to then type "becky" -- but they *are* likelier to correctly type "anne"! this is the really weird and interesting part of our findings.

    we hypothesize that there is some of what psychologists call "spreading activation" taking place: the miscue helps you remember other things you learned in the context of the experiment, but doesn't interfere with the actual production of the correct answer.

    anyway, this is why subliminal advertising doesn't work. if you see the word "coke" but what you want is "lemonade", maybe you are likelier to think about getting a drink, but you'll likely get yourself a lemonade rather than a coke.

    we have some preliminary data showing that *overt* cues don't work that way. if we show the name "becky" with anne's face in a non-subliminal way, then subjects appear to type "becky" a lot of the time. this is probably why overt advertising actually does work, too.