<p><strong>Short answer:</strong> It does not make sense to talk about 'bridging' implicit and explicit memory.</p>

<p><strong>Longer answer:</strong> Explicitness and implicitness of memory is most appropriately considered a property of the <em>memory test</em>, not the <em>memory being tested</em>. Memories, physically speaking, have both explicit and implicit properties. They are 'bridged' by default.</p>

<p>The difference between explicit (and more specifically declarative) memory and implicit memory is more definitional and epistemic, i.e., related to our ability to measure and analyze, than anything empirical. Memory is declarative, by definition, when it can be tested by way of an articulated participant response. Memory is implicit, by definition, when it can be tested by way of behavioral performance. </p>

<p>For example, consider something basic like transporting yourself from point A (say, your house) to point B (say, the train station). You have implicit memory of this route, which we can see by observing you move from A to B. You also have explicit memory of this route, which we can see by having you describe the path from A to B. It is fundamentally no more complex than that.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-16T11:18:26.150Z
Not in the explicit-implicit model it isn't. Take it up with the question author if you don't like that model, I guess.
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-16T07:56:15.667Z
2015-04-16T07:56:15.667Z
Christian Hummeluhr
<p>It is self evident, from the various studies of Skinner and Pavlov, that a traumatic - or one of a similar nature - experience possesses the tendency to reside within certain schemas through the processes of classical conditioning; exmpli gratia, one may experience unpleasant stings from a wasp ,and thusly bestow fear ( based on that of the pain derived from stings) upon all creatures with similar characteristics through generalisation. And, hence these conditions based upon the creatures may last for prolonged durations, depending upon the frequency and "intensity" of the exposure. </p>

<p>However, my question is: could there possibly be a way to bridge implicit memory with declarative in such a process similar to conditioning? So that, as one, for instance, endeavours to memorise a speech, a certain experience associated , despite the fact that the speech may have never encountered the memoriser, could massively boost one's ability to do so. </p>

<p>I acknowledge the fact this question may not only seem far-fetched and implausible but perhaps spawned from ignorance, yet, I am invariably pondering upon ways to increase one's memory a part from the traditional mnemonics and other strategies. </p>

<p><strong>Is it possible to 'bridge' implicit and explicit memory?</strong></p>

<memory><working-memory><conditioning>
Is it possible to bridge implicit and explicit memory?
Hector Berlioz
# Is it possible to bridge implicit and explicit memory?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-04-15)

It is self evident, from the various studies of Skinner and Pavlov, that a traumatic - or one of a similar nature - experience possesses the tendency to reside within certain schemas through the processes of classical conditioning; exmpli gratia, one may experience unpleasant stings from a wasp ,and thusly bestow fear ( based on that of the pain derived from stings) upon all creatures with similar characteristics through generalisation. And, hence these conditions based upon the creatures may last for prolonged durations, depending upon the frequency and "intensity" of the exposure.

However, my question is: could there possibly be a way to bridge implicit memory with declarative in such a process similar to conditioning? So that, as one, for instance, endeavours to memorise a speech, a certain experience associated , despite the fact that the speech may have never encountered the memoriser, could massively boost one's ability to do so.

I acknowledge the fact this question may not only seem far-fetched and implausible but perhaps spawned from ignorance, yet, I am invariably pondering upon ways to increase one's memory a part from the traditional mnemonics and other strategies.

**Is it possible to 'bridge' implicit and explicit memory?**

**Tags:** memory, working-memory, conditioning


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-04-16. Score: 3

**Short answer:** It does not make sense to talk about 'bridging' implicit and explicit memory.

**Longer answer:** Explicitness and implicitness of memory is most appropriately considered a property of the *memory test*, not the *memory being tested*. Memories, physically speaking, have both explicit and implicit properties. They are 'bridged' by default.

The difference between explicit (and more specifically declarative) memory and implicit memory is more definitional and epistemic, i.e., related to our ability to measure and analyze, than anything empirical. Memory is declarative, by definition, when it can be tested by way of an articulated participant response. Memory is implicit, by definition, when it can be tested by way of behavioral performance.

For example, consider something basic like transporting yourself from point A (say, your house) to point B (say, the train station). You have implicit memory of this route, which we can see by observing you move from A to B. You also have explicit memory of this route, which we can see by having you describe the path from A to B. It is fundamentally no more complex than that.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not in the explicit-implicit model it isn't. Take it up with the question author if you don't like that model, I guess.  

---

