Intensity of neural signals lead to faster learning...?

[nyiregyhazi]

Sigh... Again, the purpose is not about learning how to play the piano, which you seem to think is the point.  Do you not realize how each time you respond, you make some comment that this is about piano technique?  Even though I've stated numerous times that it isn't?  Playing is required, but it's not the point.

You can make this irrational attempt to segregate inseparable variables as many times as you like. Putting a different frame on something does not eliminate inherent causality. Your argument is analagous to a smoker who says he smokes for the nicotine rush and not for the derogatory effect on the health- as if that will somehow prevent any ill effects taking place upon his body. Focusing on only one aspect of a product that is inseparable from the other aspects does not change reality. Ignorance does not serve to prevent anything. If you play notes fast and loud over and over without either preparation or slower executions to assess the quality and observe more details, you will damage your technique- no matter whether you choose to wear blinkers to that aspect. This is especially true if you throw out musical considerations (rather than choose to merely understate them). If you think you can casually dismiss the impact on technique, you are not living in the real world. Quoting from books does not make an argument any stronger, if you are selective about which relevant factors you choose to give consideration to. If you casually discard some out of wishful thinking, your entire argument rests on rocky foundations. You are arguing like a lawyer- who wishes to build a case for something regardless of what the reality is. You need to think like a scientist- and pay at least as much attention to factors that conflict with what you might like to be true.

With your style of logic, a person could build an argument that the best way to learn something quickly is to be absolutely terrified during practise sessions- as this makes memories more vivid. It would superficially appear to make sense- although it has no bearing on reality unless you actually care to consider all of the other pertinent factors that illustrate how foolish this would be. While a lawyer can win a trial by putting up a strong enough case for something that is not true, a person can never change objective reality by only looking at small parts of a far bigger story.
 

And no, I never disagreed with the fastest way to form an efficient neural memory by practicing the same movements.

I didn't say you did. I stated that QUALITY of repetition is a necessary factor. Going quickly at the outset makes for inconsistency and lack of awareness of the fine details what you are doing- which makes neural pathways less stable and less complete. Inconsistent quality in repetition is not as effective as consistent quality of repetition. If you can do something consistently 10 times over at a high speed, you already had a perfectly good neural pathway for the movement (and have simply risked undermining it, by doing so many repetitions without time to consider the quality). You'd have gained a lot more by actually thinking about what you were doing and considering the musical requirements within the composition- in order to tie in more mental association to the actual context.

[werq34ac]

I encourage you to try.*  Good luck attempting to do the impossible!

*Using random digits and random, nonsensical notes.

Try me. 3.1415926535 off the top of my head. Boom 11 digits. now after staring at it for 10 seconds, 897932846264. 12 digits. Short term memory is a powerful thing. Now of course I won't remember it tomorrow, but still 12 digits. Unless i decided to continually remember it.

[faulty_damper]

Try me. 3.1415926535 off the top of my head. Boom 11 digits. now after staring at it for 10 seconds, 897932846264. 12 digits. Short term memory is a powerful thing. Now of course I won't remember it tomorrow, but still 12 digits. Unless i decided to continually remember it.

Were these random digits?  Did you chunk?  If you didn't, then I suggest you contact a psychologist and have your memory tested because you have beyond human capacity.  You will go down in psychological history.  But then, after further testing, it may be shown that you were, in fact, chunking.

[nyiregyhazi]

Were these random digits?  Did you chunk?  If you didn't, then I suggest you contact a psychologist and have your memory tested because you have beyond human capacity.  You will go down in psychological history.  But then, after further testing, it may be shown that you were, in fact, chunking.

So what if the brain organises it in some way? If it's 7 chunks (plus or minus two) of sizes that are not specifically determined, the whole thing is effectively meaningless anyway (especially seeing as others believe that four is the limit, if you're looking for the maximum number of chunks). The important thing is that it's readily possible to do more than 9 digits, without anything resembling genius. I'm sure it's also far from uncommon for musicians to be able to repeat a twelve-tone row after a single listen (and then forget it for good).

[mike_lang]

Who cares if it's 3 or 7 or 12 or 300?  The point is that we have a limited memory, and when we group things together, we remember more!

[liszt85]

This idea just came to me while practicing.  I thought I'd share it.

The intensity of the neural signal depends on two factors:
1. rate of neural signals and
2. the number of neurons involved in signaling

If repetition of neural communication leads to stronger connections, then increasing the rate of signaling and increasing the number of neurons involved in that signaling should increase the rate of learning.

How to accomplish this:
1. play fast, ignoring any attempt to make music
2. play loud, also ignoring music-making


The anecdotal evidence for this may include fast and loud pieces that are faster learned than slow and soft ones.

You have collected some random facts about the brain and have attempted to put together a hypothesis for what can improve the rate of learning. I appreciate your effort. I think more people must engage in this kind of thinking, trying to incorporate information from Science. That said, there is always the danger of getting misled if you don't dig in deep enough. Learning is thought to take place through potentiation and so you are right (i.e., agree with the majority of the scientific community) in saying that learning and memory is about the connections between neurons. How you got from there to saying that playing louder and faster will help memory is beyond me. You've completely ignored a host of other factors. Lets talk about attention. Attention and more processing time for the stimulus is important. If you play notes too fast while learning them, you are simply not giving the individual notes and the associations between notes enough processing time. Only after sensing and processing this information can you even begin learning mechanisms. So you're completely off the mark here in your leap to making claims about loudness and speed as being helpful for memory. Your anecdotal evidence is weak at best and even if that were true, there is a host of other alternative explanations. Neuroscientists today are grappling with these complex questions.. and all I'm saying is, please be careful when making such huge leaps from random brain facts to counter-intuitive conclusions about what works best for memory.

[liszt85]

double post.

[liszt85]

No- I looked it up. It's specific to memory of numbers- and even then people can regularly achieve 10 digits or more. Therefore it's not accurate.

The figure of 7+-2 is indeed for certain restricted cases (eg: digits, unrelated letters, etc) and is related to sound (if you present stuff in Chinese to Chinese people, their limits of STM will be different based on how many syllables or digits can be pronounced in ~2 seconds, turns out that we can speak about 7+-2 digits/letters in English in 2 seconds and that is really what we're measuring here). However, why are people arguing so much about the limit of short term memory here? I'm guessing you're using that to argue against the OP's claim that playing faster will help memory. If so, you're on the right track. At any time, you want to allocate sufficient attentional resources to all the relevant notes and you cannot do that if you're playing too fast.

[lloyd_cdb]

I personally feel there are 4 pages of ridiculous arguments that have little to do with the original post.  In addition, much of the discussion is simply irrelevant.  The point of practice is to learn, not to memorize.  Therefore, you can argue relentlessly on whether or not the OP is a stretched or opinionated application of semi-sound theory, but in the end it doesn't matter (especially being in the "student's corner").  

From my personal experience, physical memory is much more important than visual memory.  When I perform a piece I rely on my previous positions on the piano to know where I'm going next (relating to how much physical practice I've performed to know the actual physical movements to play the piece musically).  I don't close my eyes and visualize the piece just to show I don't need the sheet music in front of me.  If the OP is referring to physical memory as opposed to visual memory, then it's even more useless.  Physical movements to play the piece musically are quickly learned, and hard to replace (practiced errors are devastating to learning a piece).  The physical movements to play a piece loud and fast is simply not what you will be doing to actually play the piece.  Therefore the 'learning' that just took place needs to be 'eliminated' anyway (so to speak, as I do understand it's more replacement than elimination).

Most importantly, regardless of my opinions and the opinions of many of the experienced pianists, this argument only serves one purpose in this section.  Simply to confuse the newer pianists who are in this section to ask for tried and true methods of learning to supplement their current practice.  I've come back to this argument several times without having posted, as I'm sure many others have (1700+ views, most likely including those inexperienced pianists).  Personally I'd much rather see this in another section as opposed to being listed with threads such as:

'Hands together or separate?' or 'sight reading tips?'

Preferably in Misc. or at bare minimum 'teaching'.

[werq34ac]

Were these random digits?  Did you chunk?  If you didn't, then I suggest you contact a psychologist and have your memory tested because you have beyond human capacity.  You will go down in psychological history.  But then, after further testing, it may be shown that you were, in fact, chunking.

No they weren't random. It's Pi which I don't have memorized beyond 3.1415926535 (see I told you I wouldn't remember it today). The point is, short term memory is useless in the long run unless you continually have to recall it over extended periods of time. (Actually memorizing pi beyond 3.1415 is probably useless anyway. Most cases 3.14 is sufficient). And yes I did chunk it, but then doesn't that mean that people with powerful memories simply have an exceptional chunking ability rather than the ability to memorize more than 7 digits?

And by the way, to avoid chunking, I'm pretty sure I can memorize more than 7 different formulas for my science and math classes. Otherwise I'd be pretty screwed. You can't chunk formulas easily because essentially, each formula is a chunk.

[nyiregyhazi]

And by the way, to avoid chunking, I'm pretty sure I can memorize more than 7 different formulas for my science and math classes. Otherwise I'd be pretty screwed. You can't chunk formulas easily because essentially, each formula is a chunk.

? That's not short-term memory.

[lloyd_cdb]

? That's not short-term memory.

Depends how much you procrastinate 

[werq34ac]

Well I forgot the formula the day after the test.. so I assumed it was short term memory.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well I forgot the formula the day after the test.. so I assumed it was short term memory.

Ah, fair point. I think the estimated numbers refer to extreme short-term though- rather than something that has been thought about long enough to ingrain it for a few days

[lostinidlewonder]

I personally feel there are 4 pages of ridiculous arguments that have little to do with the original post.

And you only seeing four pages of it in this thread, there's hundreds!

[hmpiano]

Ah, fair point. I think the estimated numbers refer to extreme short-term though- rather than something that has been thought about long enough to ingrain it for a few days

There is no such thing as 'extreme short term memory'.  You introduced the term 'short term memory' into this discussion being unaware of its meaning.  Now suddenly there exists this  new term?!  Maybe do some research first?

[nyiregyhazi]

There is no such thing as 'extreme short term memory'.  You introduced the term 'short term memory' into this discussion being unaware of its meaning.  Now suddenly there exists this  new term?!  Maybe do some research first?

Short term memory means memory that exists in the short term- ie. a period of time that is brief but undefined. Seeing as even scientists cannot agree as to precisely what they mean by the phrase, it is perfectly reasonable to take its literal meaning rather than its meaning in a more specific jargon. That is why I clarified that, while the other posters reference to a shortish duration of memorisation was not unreasonable, it was not what the figures refer to. I have little doubt that the reason such phrases as "active memory" and working memory" are used is because the phrase "short term memory" cannot reasonably restricted to the context of specific jargon. Regardless, if you'd like to clarify precisely what supposedly suggests that I don't know what short-term memory is, you're welcome to provide a quote.

PS. Many scientists believe that standard distinctions between short-term memory and long-term memory (in the jargon sense) are effectively synthetic and oversimplified anyway. If you think a phrase can only ever be used in reference to specific jargon that has evolved from it (rather than in terms of the collective meaning of the actual words), I don't think you quite appreciate how language works.

[hmpiano]

Regardless, if you'd like to clarify precisely what supposedly suggests that I don't know what short-term memory is, you're welcome to provide a quote.
 

Anyone who could come up with the silly term 'extreme short term memory' obviously has no idea what 'short term memory' means.  Outside of illness, it can't get any more extreme!

[nyiregyhazi]

Anyone who could come up with the silly term 'extreme short term memory' obviously has no idea what 'short term memory' means.  Outside of illness it can't get any more extreme!

Short term memory can either mean memory that exists in a term deemed to be short or memory that exists in the specific short term scientists have chosen. I was explaining the fact that "short term memory" (when used as scientific jargon) refers to what is indeed an extremely "short term" (to clarify to the other poster that memorising more than 7 equations for a test is not an example of the kind of "short term memory" that the figures are in reference to). You're trolling again. Still, if you get off on misrepresenting what I wrote, entertain yourself. There's nothing of interest with regard to the topic here.

[faulty_damper]

Items in STM stay in STM for up to 10 minutes.  Anything longer and long-term potentiation occurs which means it will consolidate to LTM.  Cramming will work for an exam the next day but because consolidation requires practice, and no more study sessions take place, the material will decay and be forgotten.

Seeing as even scientists cannot agree as to precisely what they mean by the phrase, it is perfectly reasonable to take its literal meaning rather than its meaning in a more specific jargon.

STM is a psychological term that has been adopted by neuroscience.  It's meaning is well-defined.  There is no confusion.

[lloyd_cdb]

Items in STM stay in STM for up to 10 minutes. Anything longer and long-term potentiation occurs which means it will consolidate to LTM.

STM is a psychological term that has been adopted by neuroscience.  It's meaning is well-defined.  There is no confusion.

It's meaning is well defined in scientific literature (plural), or well defined in the one article you are citing?  It took me 30 seconds of searching to find vastly differing definitions of STM from scholarly articles published within the last decade.  Considering there are plenty of posts in this thread debating the length of STM, clearly there IS confusion.

Here is an individual I bumped into during those 30 seconds and found fairly fascinating.

Clive Wearing

A musician suffering from anterograde as well as retrograde amnesia.  Recalls anything for 7-30 seconds, and then forgets it.  Remembers nothing about his life, but fascinatingly can still play the piano. Here's the youtube playlist of the BBC documentary:

&feature=plcp

[faulty_damper]

No, there is no confusion as to what short-term memory is.  I encourage you to read them all if you assert that there is any confusion amongst psychologists as to what it is.

But for the lay, the confusion stems from the term "short-term memory".  Since everyone understands what "short-term" means, they simply apply that definition to memory and assumes short-term memory is what they think.  They are wrong.  The confusion is simply out of ignorance.  This is one reason why I prefer the term "working memory" or "active memory"; they are more accurate descriptions of the phenomenon.


The initials, CW, if accompanied by the topic of memory will be familiar to most psychologists.  The name Clive Wearing will be familiar with few of them.  I was not familiar since a living subject is only identified by their initials in the psychological literature.

But background: CW suffered an extreme case of encephalitis caused by a herpes virus. It damaged parts of his brain, most significantly, his hippocampus.  Without the hippocampus, he was unable to consolidate most semantic experiences into long-term memory.  As a result, he cannot remember anything the moment it is dropped from his working memory.  This doesn't mean he can't remember certain things.  He can as shown by a change in behavior so he does, in fact, learn.

So how can he learn if he can't recall after the moment it is dropped?  What occurs in STM is that the neural signal bounces back and forth through various brain areas, directly communicating with the hippocampus.  Since the hippocampus is damaged, he can't relay information through it.  This is fundamental to LTM as the hippocampus relays information back to the areas that originally encoded the memory, a way of reconstructing the memory.  But since it's damaged, this does not occur.

However, since a memory occurs when a synapse is strengthened (the point of this thread), the very act being aware led to a memory, i.e. neurons sent APs to other neurons.  This strengthens the synapse just enough as long as he can maintain his attention, and thus send more APs.  The more the APs, the stronger the neural intensity resulting in increased synaptic strength.  So at the local level, a memory is formed.  This memory is localized to various specific areas in the brain and since the hippocampus can't relay this information to other areas that also encoded the experience, he is left with various pieces without any way to put them together.  This inability to put it together is why he can't tell you what he did a moment ago even though synapses were strengthened.  (Speculation.)

[nyiregyhazi]

Sorry, but your snobbery about a lay person's use of the term is not valid. Do you also berate people for referring to a pleasant atmosphere as positive energy or anyone who speaks of magnetic attraction between two lovers? Having an assigned meaning in science does not negate an alternative interpretation of words as being valid. usage in a context of jargon does not mean that exclusive rights to words or phrases have been acquired. as you say, working memory is a better phrase- because it does not have an inherent meaning as a phrase- that would differ from what a scientist would mean. If someone remembers something for a few hours, it's perfectly reasonable to say it was in short term memory- just not the kind jargon refers to. That's why I clarified to the other poster what the numbers thing refers to- but there is certainly no reason for him to be embarrassed by having taken it in the broader context.

Regarding the disagreement- there is plenty about how long it is and how much it can store.

[lloyd_cdb]

No, there is no confusion as to what short-term memory is.  I encourage you to read them all if you assert that there is any confusion amongst psychologists as to what it is.

But for the lay, the confusion stems from the term "short-term memory".  Since everyone understands what "short-term" means, they simply apply that definition to memory and assumes short-term memory is what they think.  They are wrong.  The confusion is simply out of ignorance.  This is one reason why I prefer the term "working memory" or "active memory"; they are more accurate descriptions of the phenomenon.

I never asserted there is confusion amongst psychologists as to what short term memory is (as a concept).  I asserted there is debate as to what defines it.  I have read several of the articles, and while some of them do in fact just debate over terminology, there is a fundamental debate as to what is the defining factor in classifying memory as "short".  Working memory and active memory are just as ambiguous, as every scholar uses their own definition for them for the purposes of their research.

My point has nothing to do with 'the lay person' and how they interpret the term.  My point is that you are citing a reference that defines it one way, whereas I can cite a reference that defines it another.  That unequivocally means there IS a debate over its meaning.

[mike_lang]

Are y'all finished with your dick measuring contest?

[lloyd_cdb]

I'm not a psychologist, I have no interest in arguing psychology and it's subsequent terminology.  My comments were not meant to be a construed as an attempt to be 'holier than thou'.  My main issue with this thread is that it is in the student's corner.  There have been ~750 threads with posts in 2012.  This ranks in the top 20 viewed during that time. That sickens me for a section devoted to helping people learn, given that...

The confusing seems to be using pieces as piano learning tools.  I am simply suggesting that if you already can play the piano, you can use these strategies to increase the rate of learning a new piece.

...the stated intention was not about learning to play but about memorizing quickly for an already accomplished pianist.

As I stated, I'm not a psychologist.  I am a mathematician/statistician by trade. In association with that I have two major pet peeves in life.  Absolutisms, and abuse of correlation and causation.  The amount of times people have said "this is factual info that can't be debated" is truly offending to me, especially given the majority of the discussions have been in the soft science of psychology and definitons vs. the original thesis related to the hard science of neurology and biochemistry.  My opinions related to the thesis and my other pet peeve is irrelevant to this post, so I won't add more fuel to the discussion/argument.

As I've mentioned before, it would be nice for this to be moved elsewhere so it doesn't sit at the top of a section devoted to students inquiring about learning techniques.

[lostinidlewonder]

Let's all create accounts to support our threads lol.