THURSDAY, July 14 (HealthDay News) -- Before the advent of home
computers and cell phones, you probably memorized a lot more
information -- such as phone numbers and birthdays -- than you do
Not surprisingly, a new study has found that the brain just
doesn't remember information as well if the person knows that the
information has been saved on a computer. What people may remember,
where they need to look on the computer to access that
What isn't yet clear is how these changing memory patterns may
change the brain in the long run.
"I think [technology] might hurt the type of memorization that we usually think about, like remembering the name of an actress, but I think there might be some benefits, too," said study author Betsy Sparrow, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Columbia University in New York City.
"If you take away the mindset of memorization, it might be that people get more information out of what they are reading, and they might better remember the concept," she explained.
Sparrow and her co-authors point out that the ways people rely
on computers for information is myriad. From the score of a
ballgame to learning how to compute a statistical formula to
figuring out just who that actor was in the movie you recently saw,
a few keystrokes can reveal what you're looking for.
"People automatically think of using a search engine and computers and smart phones to find information they don't know. It's as if we're using those devices as external memory sources, and we wondered if by doing things this way people wouldn't remember as well," said Sparrow.
To test whether or not relying on technology affects the memory,
the researchers designed four experiments. All of the study
volunteers were college students.
The first experiment had 46 volunteers, and the researchers
asked the volunteers two different blocks of trivia questions. Some
were easy questions, such as "Does 2 plus 3 equal 5?" while others
were such difficult questions that it would be almost impossible
for the volunteers to know the answer without using the computer.
For example, a possible question was, "Does Denmark contain more
square miles than Costa Rica?"
The volunteers were then shown a group of general words, such as
table or telephone, or computer words, such as "modem," "screen,"
"Google" or "Yahoo." Then, they were asked to identify the color of
each word (either red or blue). Participants who had just attempted
to answer the difficult questions responded to the color questions
slower (by about 120 milliseconds) than those who hadn't. Sparrow
said this is because they had been primed to think about using the
computer to find out the answers, which slowed their reaction time.
She added that the longest response time was to the word
The second, third and fourth experiments had 60, 28 and 34
volunteers, respectively, and each experiment built off the
In the second experiment, the volunteers answered trivia
questions and typed in their answers. Half thought the information
would be saved, while the other half thought it would be erased.
Those who thought they wouldn't have access to that information
later remembered the information better than those who thought it
had been saved.
For the third experiment, volunteers again typed in their
answers to trivia questions. They were then told the information
had been saved, erased or saved to a specific folder. Again, those
who thought the information was erased had the best recall,
according to Sparrow.
In the final experiment, the researchers told the volunteers
that all of the information would be saved, and gave them generic
file names, such as "FACTS," "DATA," "NAMES" or "INFO." They were
then asked to write down on a sheet of paper as many of the answers
as they could remember, and where the information was stored. The
researchers found that people remembered where they had stored the
information more than what the information was.
Sparrow pointed out that this isn't so different from how people
rely on each other for external memory. For example, you may know
someone who retains a lot of sports info, and you may have another
friend that's a movie buff. In the past, if you needed this info,
you would ask friends or family. Now, she said, the Internet is
providing many people with lots of knowledge.
Results of the study were published online in
Science on July 14.
Dr. Boris Leheta, a neurologist at St. John Hospital and Medical
Center in Detroit, said that while there may be unknown
ramifications to using computers as external memory, he doesn't see
this as a "doomsday study."
"If we're not using the capacity we have for memory, there is definitely a concern because we do still need to perform some memorization tasks," he said, but added that on the other hand, "Maybe we can spin the technology to our benefit. Maybe technology can alleviate us from excessive information overload."
"An analogy might be the abacus. Would you say that someone who used an abacus in the past wasn't challenged mathematically? Maybe the technology we think could be detrimental might turn out to be positive," said Leheta.
But, he noted that this is an initial study, and more studies
need to be done to confirm the findings and figure out exactly what
the potential consequences might be.
Visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine for tips on
Please be aware that this information is provided to supplement the care provided by your physician. It is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. CALL YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER IMMEDIATELY IF YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
Copyright © EBSCO Publishing. All rights reserved.