You’re at a conference, balancing a coffee in one hand and shaking hands with a stranger in the other. They smile and say their name. You nod, repeat it back, and move on. A week later, you see them again. Panic. The name is gone. What happened? You encoded the information; you heard the name. But without proper storage, that fleeting moment never made it into durable memory. Storage is the silent bridge between experience and recollection. It’s what allows a conversation, a phone number, or a powerful emotion to outlast the moment it was formed. Without it, memory is a sieve. With it, our past becomes something we can revisit, reuse, and build upon.

At its core, storage refers to how encoded memories are preserved within the brain over time. This process isn’t passive but involves a range of neural activities that work to stabilize, strengthen, and organize memory traces. Information isn’t stored in a centralized location or in fixed formats. Instead, memories are distributed across various brain regions, depending on their type. Declarative memories are often housed in the medial temporal lobes and neocortex, procedural memories in the basal ganglia and cerebellum, episodic memories in the hippocampus, and emotional memories in the amygdala. Each memory undergoes molecular and systems-level changes that influence how long it lasts and how accurately it can be retrieved.¹

In the widely used Working Memory Model, developed by Baddeley and Hitch, memory is divided into three components. Short-term memory holds information temporarily, working memory manipulates it actively, and long-term memory stores it over time—from days to decades. Long-term memory splits into two forms: explicit (e.g., facts, events) and implicit (e.g., motor skills, habits).

When talking about memory, another fundamental concept is consolidation—the process by which fragile short-term memories are stabilized into more durable forms. This process is enhanced during sleep, especially slow-wave sleep, which is critical for strengthening declarative memory.² 

Emotionally significant memories are also more likely to be stored long-term. Research shows that the release of stress hormones such as epinephrine and cortisol during arousal enhances memory consolidation by activating the amygdala.³ Events tied to emotional intensity, such as a first kiss, traumatic accidents, or awards won, often endure more vividly than routine details. As consolidation plays an important role in the storage of memories, so does the process of reconsolidation. Each time a memory is retrieved, it temporarily returns to a malleable state, during which it can be altered or updated before being stored again.⁴

Beyond consolidation and reconsolidation, storage plays a role in semantic integration, the linking of new knowledge to existing schemas: mental frameworks that categorize information. Meaningful learning depends on this integration process, which influences how easily information is stored and retrieved.⁵ Well-integrated memories tend to be more durable, interconnected, and resistant to decay. In contrast, isolated facts, even if encoded well, are more vulnerable to forgetting unless reinforced over time.

Finally, memory storage is deeply tied to identity and learning. Without stable memory storage, we could not build knowledge, form habits, maintain relationships, or construct a sense of self over time. The storage process transforms fleeting experiences into mental structures that shape how we think, behave, and grow.

Consolidation: The process through which newly encoded information becomes stable and resistant to disruption. It involves both synaptic (cellular-level) and systems-level changes, including the reorganization of memory traces across brain networks. This process is particularly enhanced during sleep and emotional arousal, which help transform fragile short-term memories into long-term storage.¹

Short-Term Memory (STM): Holding information for brief periods, typically under 30 seconds, unless it is actively rehearsed. It has a limited capacity, famously estimated as 7±2 items by George Miller, and is critical for tasks like holding a phone number before dialing it. While short-term memory is often conflated with working memory, the two serve distinct roles.⁷

Long-Term Memory (LTM): Refers to the brain's system for storing information over extended durations, ranging from hours to a lifetime. It includes both explicit memory (facts and events) and implicit memory (skills and conditioning), and its storage relies on structural changes in synaptic strength and cortical reorganization. Once consolidated, long-term memories are remarkably resilient, though still subject to distortion and decay.

Working Memory: A limited-capacity system that allows us to hold and manipulate information in real time, such as solving a math problem or planning a sentence while speaking. Unlike short-term memory, which primarily stores information briefly, working memory engages executive control processes to update, organize, and redirect attention. It is most often associated with activity in the prefrontal cortex.

Reconsolidation: The process by which previously stored memories become labile and open to modification when retrieved. During this window, memories can be strengthened, updated, or even disrupted before they are re-stored. This finding has reshaped how we think about memory as not static, but malleable across the lifespan.⁴

Human curiosity about memory storage stretches back to the origins of philosophy. In Theaetetus, Plato compared memory to a wax tablet; soft when impressions are made, firm once set. The metaphor suggested that lived experience could leave mental traces, raising early questions about how information persists over time. By the 17th century, thinkers like John Locke imagined memory as a “cabinet” filled with labeled drawers for storing experiences and facts.⁸ While elegant, these models lacked empirical grounding. For centuries, memory remained a philosophical abstraction: complex, internal, and inaccessible to direct observation.

Scientific progress began in the late 19th century with Hermann Ebbinghaus, a German psychologist who conducted the first systematic studies of memory using nonsense syllables. In 1885, he published his findings on the forgetting curve, revealing how rapidly information is lost if not reinforced.⁹ Ebbinghaus demonstrated that rehearsal slows forgetting, providing the first quantitative evidence of memory’s temporal decay and offering a glimpse into storage’s limitations.

Despite Ebbinghaus’ progress, memory fell out of focus during the rise of behaviorism in the early 20th century. Researchers like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner emphasized observable behavior and dismissed internal processes like storage as “black box” phenomena.¹⁰ But by the 1950s, cognitive psychology emerged in response to behaviorism’s blind spots. Memory was reintroduced as a central mechanism of learning and thought.

The Atkinson-Shiffrin Model (1968) marked a turning point.¹¹ Their “modal model” proposed that information flows through three stages: sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). Storage was no longer just a metaphor but became a formal stage in an information-processing system. They argued that rehearsal was key for moving data from STM to LTM, a model still echoed in modern learning theory.

Not long after, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) proposed the Working Memory Model, reframing short-term memory as an active, multi-component system.¹² It featured a central executive system controlling the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad, which temporarily hold verbal and visual data. This theory added a dynamic dimension to memory storage, highlighting its role in real-time reasoning, decision-making, and learning.

One of the most influential medical cases in neuroscience reshaped our understanding of memory: Henry Molaison, better known as H.M..13 In 1953, he underwent brain surgery to treat severe epilepsy. Surgeons removed portions of his medial temporal lobes, including the hippocampus. The seizures subsided, but so did his ability to form new long-term memories. H.M. could carry on conversations, remember a phone number briefly, and engage in tasks with short-term recall. But minutes later, those experiences vanished. He lived in an eternal present. This striking dissociation between short-term memory and long-term consolidation offered powerful evidence that the hippocampus plays a critical role in stabilizing memories over time. It wasn’t where memories were stored permanently, but it was the gatekeeper for getting them there.

Building on these findings, researchers like Larry Squire advanced the theory of multiple memory systems, distinguishing between declarative and non-declarative forms.¹⁴ Declarative memories (facts and events) are stored across cortical regions, while procedural memories (skills and habits) depend on subcortical structures like the basal ganglia and cerebellum. Storage was now understood not as a unified mechanism, but as distributed, content-specific, and shaped by neural specialization.

Another major leap came with the discovery of reconsolidation. In 2000, Nader, Schafe, and LeDoux found that once a memory is recalled, it re-enters a malleable state.⁴ In their experiment, rats were conditioned to fear a tone. After reactivating the memory, the researchers disrupted protein synthesis in the amygdala, erasing the fear response. This showed that even “stored” memories are not static but subject to rewriting—a finding that has had wide-reaching implications. Modern sleep studies by researchers such as Rasch and Born (2013) have also uncovered how slow-wave sleep contributes to consolidation by helping to organize and protect stored memories from decay.¹⁶

Today, our understanding of storage informs diverse fields, from classroom instruction to artificial intelligence. It shapes how we design study tools, therapeutic interventions, and even courtroom procedures involving eyewitness testimony. Far from being a static system, memory storage is now seen as a living, evolving process, flexible enough to adapt to experience, yet powerful enough to sustain identity across a lifetime.

Hermann Ebbinghaus

Working primarily in the 1880s, Ebbinghaus was the first psychologist to experimentally investigate memory processes in a controlled, quantitative manner. His 1885 publication introduced the forgetting curve, showing that memory traces deteriorate rapidly without reinforcement.⁹ He demonstrated that storage weakens over time unless actively rehearsed, a finding still central to how we understand forgetting today. Ebbinghaus's work established memory as a scientific object of study rather than a purely philosophical concept.

Brenda Milner

Milner’s most influential research began in the 1950s and 60s with her study of Henry Molaison (H.M.), a patient whose hippocampal removal led to profound amnesia. Her work demonstrated that short-term memory could remain intact despite total loss of long-term consolidation, revealing the dissociable nature of storage systems.¹³ She was instrumental in establishing the hippocampus as essential for transferring information from short-term to long-term memory. Milner is widely regarded as one of the founders of cognitive neuroscience.

Richard C. Atkinson

Active from the 1960s through the 1980s, Atkinson co-developed the Atkinson-Shiffrin Model in 1968, which defined memory as a system composed of sensory, short-term, and long-term stores.¹¹ His theory emphasized that storage is not automatic but depends on factors like rehearsal and attention. The model provided one of the first clear frameworks for thinking about how and where memory traces are maintained. It became foundational in both experimental psychology and educational theory.

Alan Baddeley

Starting in the 1970s and still active today, Baddeley transformed the concept of short-term storage with the working memory model he developed alongside Graham Hitch.¹² His theory posited that memory storage is not just a buffer for passive information, but a multi-component system that actively manipulates incoming data. This was crucial in connecting memory storage with attention, language, and executive function. His model remains one of the most widely used frameworks in cognitive science and education.

Larry R. Squire

Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing into the 2000s, Squire led research that helped delineate multiple memory systems, especially the divide between declarative and non-declarative memory.¹⁴ Using neuroimaging and studies of amnesia, he demonstrated that long-term storage depends on a distributed network of structures, not a single brain region. His contributions redefined storage as a content-specific and biologically diverse process. Squire’s work remains a cornerstone of modern memory neuroscience.

How memories are stored has profound consequences not only for individual cognition but for systems as large as education, healthcare, and emerging technologies. Storage affects how we learn, how we heal, and how we design machines that think. Below, we explore three domains where understanding storage offers transformative impact: education, mental health, and technology.

Education

Research in cognitive psychology shows that retrieval practice, spaced repetition, and interleaving significantly boost long-term storage by creating durable memory traces.¹⁷ For instance, Roediger and Karpicke (2006) found that students who were tested repeatedly on new material retained nearly 80% more information after one week than those who only studied it once.¹⁸

Understanding storage has also shifted how we think about forgetting. Rather than being seen as a failure of intelligence, forgetting is increasingly viewed as a natural part of memory dynamics, something that can be anticipated and even leveraged. Teachers trained in cognitive science now design assessments and lessons around memory’s natural rhythms, embedding retrieval opportunities to strengthen storage rather than relying on last-minute review.

Moreover, research on working memory has informed how we scaffold complex tasks. Instructional designers now break down learning into “cognitively digestible” units, allowing information to be held and manipulated in short-term buffers before it’s rehearsed into long-term memory.¹⁹ These innovations make learning more equitable, helping students with limited working memory capacity or executive function deficits.

Trauma and mental health

Memory storage plays a central role in trauma, shaping not only how distressing experiences are encoded but also how they are later retrieved or relived. In PTSD, traumatic memories aren’t just recalled; they come back as vivid flashbacks, experienced as if they’re happening all over again. Unlike ordinary memories, which tend to form part of a coherent life story, traumatic memories often lack structure and timeline. They may be stored in fragments, sensory flashes, emotions, or images, rather than as an organized autobiographical narrative. This fragmentation helps explain why they feel intrusive and uncontrollable.

Therapies that work with memory storage are now helping people reshape how they experience trauma. One well-known example is Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). This approach is based on reconsolidation; the idea that when we recall a memory, it becomes flexible and can be changed before it's stored again. In one study, people with PTSD recalled their traumatic memories while following side-to-side movements with their eyes, a form of bilateral sensory input.¹⁵ Over time, their symptoms became less intense. By carefully reopening painful memories and pairing them with calming stimuli, the brain can store them in a less emotionally charged way.

The stakes are especially high for populations affected by chronic stress, such as refugees, abuse survivors, and those living in conflict zones. By targeting how memories are stored, not just whether they are remembered, clinicians can tailor interventions that address trauma’s neurological and narrative footprint. Storage science is becoming a therapeutic tool, helping individuals regain control over memories that once seemed inescapable.²⁰

Technology and artificial memory

The neuroscience of memory storage is now informing the design of artificial intelligence, neuroprosthetics, and brain-computer interfaces. Just as humans consolidate and organize knowledge, engineers are building machine learning systems with “memory units” that prioritize, forget, and restructure data based on salience.²¹ Techniques like Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks mimic biological systems’ ability to filter relevant information from irrelevant inputs during storage. They’re especially useful in tasks like language translation, speech recognition, and time-series prediction, where past context must be remembered to make accurate decisions.

On the medical front, memory implants are moving from fiction to the frontier. In one DARPA-funded study, researchers developed a neural prosthetic that boosted memory recall in epilepsy patients by stimulating specific hippocampal patterns.²² The device monitored brain activity and delivered targeted pulses during encoding, improving later retrieval by enhancing the quality of storage. These advances open doors to interventions for Alzheimer’s, TBI, and other memory-impairing conditions.

Even in everyday life, storage science is reshaping how we engage with digital tools. Apps like Anki, Duolingo, and Brainscape use spaced repetition algorithms grounded in empirical memory research. These tools track how well you remember specific information and adjust the timing of reviews to strengthen long-term storage, showing you that hard-to-remember content more often and easy items less frequently. What was once the domain of lab-based studies is now embedded in how we learn languages, prepare for exams, and build professional expertise. The result: a technological ecosystem that mirrors and amplifies human memory’s most efficient strategies.

While memory storage may seem like a settled science, it remains the subject of active and sometimes heated debate. As neuroscience tools grow more precise and interdisciplinary, researchers continue to question the permanence, ethics, and even the definition of memory storage. Below, we explore three ongoing controversies that challenge how we think about what it means to “store” a memory.

Is reconsolidation reliable or risky?

One of the most revolutionary findings in memory research over the past two decades is the idea that memories can be rewritten during reconsolidation. But not all scientists agree on its implications, or even its consistency. The concept, originally demonstrated in rodents by Nader et al. (2000), suggests that recalling a memory temporarily destabilizes it, opening a window for updating or erasure.⁴ While this has clear therapeutic potential for PTSD, it also raises concerns: How reliable is reconsolidation across memory types, time windows, or emotional intensities?

Critics like neuroscientist Christina Alberini have argued that reconsolidation may not apply uniformly to all kinds of memories. In some human studies, reconsolidation-based interventions have failed to disrupt established memories, especially over long durations.²³ Others caution that manipulating memories pharmacologically could lead to unintended consequences, like inadvertently altering factual information or emotional coherence.

Supporters like Daniela Schiller maintain that reconsolidation represents a powerful model for understanding memory’s adaptive function.²⁴ They argue that it reflects memory’s natural tendency to evolve with new information and should be seen not as a flaw, but a feature. Still, as clinical applications expand, the field must grapple with the ethical tension between healing and tampering with stored experience.

Should we enhance memory storage with neurotechnology?

In a dim hospital room, fourteen patients lay wired to machines, not just for treatment, but for discovery. These individuals, undergoing neurosurgery for epilepsy, had electrodes implanted in their brains to monitor seizures.²⁵ But they also participated in something remarkable: a memory experiment using a closed-loop brain-computer interface. Instead of presenting information at random, researchers waited. They watched for specific brain rhythms (theta and alpha waves) known to signal when the brain is most ready to learn. When those ideal patterns appeared, they flashed a word on the screen. And in several patients, the results were striking: recall improved, simply because the timing matched the brain’s natural encoding rhythm. The study showed how we might one day sync learning with the brain’s own electrical language.

Supporters argue that such interventions could restore lost function for individuals with Alzheimer’s or traumatic brain injuries. Groups like the Center for Neurotechnology promote this work as part of a larger mission to bridge neuroscience and assistive tech. Others suggest such enhancements could reduce educational disparities by supporting people with impaired working memory.²⁶

Critics like ethicist Martha Farah warn of cognitive inequality and unintended consequences.²⁷ Who would have access to these tools? What counts as therapeutic use versus enhancement? Could memory augmentation interfere with the natural filtering that forgetting provides?

Some neuroscientists caution that our understanding of memory storage is still incomplete. While we know that memories are distributed across neural networks involving the hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and various sensory regions, exactly how these fragments are bound together remains a major question. Boosting certain pathways through neurostimulation or pharmacological tools might improve recall in the short term, but could unintentionally disrupt the brain’s natural balance, reinforcing dominant memories while suppressing weaker but still important ones. As storage-enhancing technologies begin to move beyond clinical trials into consumer markets, from supplements to memory-boosting wearables, society faces a difficult question: How far are we willing to go to upgrade human memory? What begins as enhancement could, without oversight, lead to dependence, inequity, or even the rewriting of personal narratives.

Is memory storage even the right metaphor?

Despite its ubiquity, the idea of “storing” memories like files on a hard drive has drawn growing criticism from cognitive scientists and philosophers alike. Critics such as journalist and psychology professor Robert Epstein have challenged the dominant storage-retrieval metaphor, arguing that memory is more like reconstruction than retrieval.²⁸ In this view, each act of remembering is a creative act that reassembles fragments into a coherent whole, not the recovery of a stored object.

This perspective aligns with the groundbreaking research of Elizabeth Loftus, who revealed just how vulnerable our memories are to distortion. Through decades of studies, she showed that subtle suggestions, such as changing a single verb in a question, can alter what people remember about events, sometimes implanting entirely false memories. Her work on the misinformation effect and false memory syndrome demonstrated that even vivid, emotionally charged recollections can be fabricated or reshaped by context and leading language.²⁹ Rather than a fixed archive, memory storage emerges as a flexible, reconstructive process, one that challenges the very idea of stable, objective recall.

On the other hand, neuroscientists like Larry Squire defend the utility of the storage model, particularly at the biological level.³⁰ Synaptic changes, long-term potentiation, and systems consolidation offer observable, physical correlates of stored experience, even if the retrieval process is reconstructive. For Squire, storage is a neurobiological fact.

Precision under pressure

In the high-stakes world of medicine, students are preparing to apply their skills in unpredictable, life-or-death scenarios. But one of the most pressing challenges in medical education is ensuring that newly learned material doesn’t fade over time. How can educators support long-term storage of knowledge so it’s accessible when it matters most?

In a 2013 study published in Medical Education, cognitive scientists Larsen, Butler, and Roediger explored this question with a carefully designed experiment targeting medical students.³¹ Their goal: to compare the effects of retrieval practice (test-enhanced learning) with self-explanation, another popular learning strategy rooted in elaboration. Students were asked to learn complex neurology content over three sessions, using one of the two techniques. A final test was administered a week later to assess long-term retention.

Both strategies helped students process the material in real-time, but only one helped it stick. Students in the retrieval practice group significantly outperformed their peers, demonstrating stronger recall of the content even after a full week. Interestingly, immediate post-session scores didn’t differ much between groups. It was the delayed test that revealed the power of retrieval. This finding suggests that the act of pulling information from memory, not just reviewing it, triggers more robust storage processes in the brain.

The implications are enormous. Self-explanation is widely used in medical training, especially in problem-based learning, but this study revealed that eliciting stored knowledge through frequent recall may do more to preserve information than elaboration alone. The authors proposed that retrieval promotes better integration of new knowledge into existing schemas and enhances semantic encoding, making memory traces more durable.

Follow-up neuroimaging research supports this view. Retrieval practice activates areas of the prefrontal cortex and medial temporal lobe, including the hippocampus, regions long associated with the consolidation of declarative memory.³² In this sense, the testing effect isn’t just a performance strategy; it’s a biologically grounded storage enhancer.

Saving memory with sleep

In the pressure-cooker world of high school, where students are expected to juggle new knowledge, shifting schedules, and mounting sleep debt, a team of researchers in Hong Kong posed a deceptively simple question: Could a nap after lunch help teenagers remember more of what they’d learned that morning?

In 2018, Lau and colleagues conducted a study that brought memory science into the real world, specifically, into a boarding school where students were routinely sleep-restricted, averaging less than 6.5 hours per night.³³ The researchers designed an experiment to mimic a typical school day. After a morning lesson involving three verbal memory tasks, story recall, paired word associations, and list learning, students were split into two groups. One group took a structured, one-hour post-lunch nap, while the other stayed awake in quiet activity. Later that afternoon, both groups were tested again.

The findings? Students who napped were better able to hold onto the material they had studied earlier. Their memories weren’t perfect, but they faded less. On tasks like story recall and paired word associations, nap-takers remembered more key details and showed stronger associations than their non-napping peers. Even in a high-functioning academic environment, where students were accustomed to heavy workloads and little rest, a single hour of sleep helped shield fragile new memories from slipping away.

What stood out was the type of memory being protected. The nap didn’t help everything—it was particularly effective for more integrated, associative forms of memory. In other words, when the brain had to bind multiple elements together (like remembering a story or linking two unrelated words), rest mattered most. This aligns with what neuroscience tells us: that sleep, especially during the day, supports hippocampal processing, helping the brain transfer new knowledge into long-term stores.

When learning is packed into rigid schedules without room to pause, consolidation suffers. But when schools make time for rest, even a short nap, they aren’t sacrificing instruction time; they’re reinforcing it. In the race to fill students’ minds, this research reminds us that storage requires silence, and that memory thrives in the spaces between effort.

Spacing Effect

This article dives into the Spacing Effect, a phenomenon showing that information is better stored when learning is spread out over time. Drawing from cognitive psychology, the piece explains how distributed practice strengthens memory traces, making retrieval more reliable and storage more durable. A great follow-up for anyone interested in how repetition timing shapes long-term retention.

Constructive Memory

Is memory storage a myth? This guide introduces the idea that memory isn’t a literal “storage” process but a reconstruction of past elements every time we recall something. It explores how constructive processes allow the brain to reassemble fragments rather than retrieve files, shedding light on why memory storage is often incomplete, biased, or altered over time. Perfect for readers curious about the flexibility (and fallibility) of stored memories.

Proactive Interference

When old memories block new learning, storage overloads happen. This piece unpacks proactive interference, the tendency for older memories to disrupt the storage of new information. It’s a practical guide for understanding why your brain sometimes fails to store new data despite effort and attention, especially useful for students, professionals, and anyone managing information overload or building learning systems.

1. Takashima, A., Petersson, K. M., Rutters, F., Tendolkar, I., Jensen, O., Zwarts, M. J., & Fernández, G. (2006). Declarative memory consolidation in humans: a prospective functional magnetic resonance imaging study. PNAS, 103(3), 756–761. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507774103
2. Rasch, B., & Born, J. (2013). About sleep's role in memory. Physiological Reviews, 93(2), 681–766. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00032.2012
3. McGaugh, J. L. (2004). The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144157
4. Nader, K., Schafe, G. E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 406(6797), 722–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021052
5. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). Freeman.
6. Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182
7. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
8. Locke, J. (1690/1975). An essay concerning human understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford University Press.
9. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology (H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). Teachers College, Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.1037/10011-000
10. Graham, G. (2000). Behaviorism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition). Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/
11. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press.
12. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
13. Scoville, W. B., & Milner, B. (1957). Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 20(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11
14. Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems. PNAS, 93(24), 13515–13522. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.24.13515
15. van den Hout, M. A., & Engelhard, I. M. (2012). How does EMDR work? Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 3(5), 724–738. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.028212
16. Rasch, B., & Born, J. (2013). About sleep’s role in memory. Physiological Reviews, 93(2), 681–766. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00032.2012
17. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
18. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
19. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
20. Lane, R. D., Ryan, L., Nadel, L., & Greenberg, L. (2015). Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy: New insights from brain science. The Behavioral and brain sciences, 38, e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000041
21. Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural Computation, 9(8), 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
22. Hampson, R. E., Song, D., Robinson, B. S., Fetterhoff, D., Dakos, A. S., Roeder, B. M., She, X., Wicks, R. T., Witcher, M. R., Couture, D. E., Laxton, A. W., Munger-Clary, H., Popli, G., Sollman, M. J., Whitlow, C. T., Marmarelis, V. Z., Berger, T. W., & Deadwyler, S. A. (2018). Developing a hippocampal neural prosthetic to facilitate human memory encoding and recall. Journal of neural engineering, 15(3), 036014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aaaed7
23. Alberini, C. M., & LeDoux, J. E. (2013). Memory reconsolidation. Current Biology, 23(17), R746–R750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.046
24. Lee, J. L., Nader, K., & Schiller, D. (2017). An update on memory reconsolidation updating. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(7), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.006
25. Burke, J. F., Merkow, M. B., Jacobs, J., Kahana, M. J., & Zaghloul, K. A. (2014). Brain computer interface to enhance episodic memory in human participants. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1055. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.01055
26. Schneider, F., Horowitz, A., Lesch, K. P., & Spalletta, G. (2020). Delaying memory decline: different options and emerging solutions. Translational Psychiatry, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-0697-x
27. Farah, M. J. (2002). Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 5(11), 1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1102-1123
28. Epstein, R. (2016). The empty brain. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
29. Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705
30. Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychological Review, 99(2), 195–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.195
31. Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Comparative effects of test‐enhanced learning and self‐explanation on long‐term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12141
32. van den Broek, G. S., Takashima, A., Segers, E., Fernández, G., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Neural correlates of testing effects in vocabulary learning. NeuroImage, 78, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.058
33. Liu, X., & Li, C. (2018). Beneficial effects of a daytime nap on verbal memory in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 67, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.06.004