Reply to comment

This was an interesting discussion. I hadn't given much thought to the concept of photographic, or eidetic, memory before. After reading the articles and discussing the concept further in class, I realized that I don't think photographic memory exists. I don't believe that any image can be preserved and stored as an accurate representation of "reality". Further, I believe that there is no evolutionary advantage to eidetic memory. In fact, one of the Scientific American articles even said that "eidetic images are certainly not photographic in nature but instead are reconstructed from memory and can be influenced by other memories (both visual and nonvisual) by cognitive biases and expectations" (Is there such..., 2007). So there is just as much distortion in the eidetic images as there are in other short- and long-term memories. This article basically says there is no such thing as photographic memory and I agree.

The article also said that children are usually the ones who are identified as having a photographic memory. How do the children even report this phenomenon? The article further explains that some researchers believe that "eidetic imagery occurs more frequently in certain populations of the mentally retarded (specifically, in individuals whose retardation most likely stems from biological, rather than environmental, causes) and also among geriatric populations" (Is there such..., 2007). Children, old people, and the mentally impaired; what is it about these populations that make them more prone to experiencing "eidetic" imagery anyway?