Types and Stages of Memory – Arizona Forensic Services, LLC

Snap Shot

The question: What are the stages and types of memory, and why do the distinctions matter when a witness’s memory is at issue?

What the research shows: Memory is a set of related systems and processes, not a single store. Encoding depends on attention, retrieval depends on cues, and recall and recognition carry different error risks. Free reports to open questions are generally accurate in laboratory studies, and failing to recall a detail does not show it was never stored.

What it does not show: The categories describe memory in groups of people under studied conditions, not whether a particular witness is accurate. Claims that each recall rewrites or erases a memory go beyond the human evidence, and a conditioned emotional reaction does not by itself establish what happened.

The law: Under Rule 702, as amended in 2023, and its military and Arizona counterparts, research must “fit” the disputed issue, and the kind of memory involved often decides fit. Rule 701 keeps specialized memory science out of lay opinion, and Arizona permits general educational testimony (Salazar-Mercado, Chapple) but not opinions on a particular witness’s credibility.

Issues for each side: Prosecutors can show that a well-documented first account or properly administered identification has real evidential value; defense counsel can show that closed questions and repeated identification tests carry error risks a free narrative does not.

Memory is not one thing. Researchers distinguish the stages a memory passes through (encoding, storage, and retrieval), the systems that hold information for different periods (sensory, short-term or working, and long-term memory), the kinds of long-term memory (memory for events, general knowledge, skills, and unconscious influences of experience), and the ways memory can be tested (free recall, cued recall, and recognition). Narrating an event, answering a yes-or-no question, and picking a face from a photo array use memory differently, and the research on each is not interchangeable.

Memory disputes arise in almost every kind of case, from a complainant’s account to an identification to an accused’s recollection of a conversation, and the first analytical step is to identify which kind of memory and which stage is in question. This foundations paper covers the stages of memory, including consolidation and the debated idea of reconsolidation; short-term and working memory; declarative and nondeclarative long-term memory; recall and recognition; and familiarity and recollection.

Encoding, Storage, and Retrieval

Researchers commonly divide the life of a memory into three phases (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 15–18). Encoding is the registering of an experience in a form that can be retained, and it depends heavily on attention: what a person does not attend to is generally not encoded in detail, which is why a witness may remember a weapon or a face well and clothing or a license plate poorly. Processing for meaning generally aids retention (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; “The Levels-of-Processing Effect”). Because witnesses can do little to control how they encode a sudden crime, the stage at which investigators can improve memory evidence is retrieval (Fisher & Schreiber, 2007).

Storage is retention over time; retrieval, bringing information back to mind, depends on cues. Category cues let people recall words from a studied list that they could not recall without cues, showing that information can be available in storage without being accessible at a given moment (Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966). Under the encoding specificity principle, a cue works to the extent that it matches how the information was encoded (Tulving & Thomson, 1973), which is the basis for the context-reinstatement step of the cognitive interview (Fisher & Schreiber, 2007). Failure to recall a detail on one occasion does not show that it was never stored, so a later recalled detail is not by itself suspect (“Delayed Recall,” “Context Effects”). Equally, a questioner’s cues can shape what is reported as well as unlock it (“The Misinformation Effect,” “Forgetting”).

Consolidation and Reconsolidation

A new memory is fragile for a period before it stabilizes, a process called consolidation. Research, much of it in animals, shows that events shortly after learning can disrupt or, in the case of stress hormones and arousal, strengthen consolidation (McGaugh, 2000). The hippocampus is central to forming new conscious memories (“The Hippocampus”); gaps associated with heavy drinking are addressed in “Intoxication and Memory.”

Reconsolidation is the hypothesis that a consolidated memory, when reactivated, may become modifiable again before it re-stabilizes. The clearest demonstration is animal research: in rats, blocking protein synthesis in the amygdala after a fear memory was reactivated impaired that memory (Nader et al., 2000). The human evidence is mixed; a critical review found many human studies open to alternative explanations (Elsey et al., 2018), and an attempt to reproduce a human fear-memory reconsolidation finding did not find the effect (Stemerding et al., 2022). In a misinformation study, reactivating a witnessed memory increased later reporting of misinformation, but the original detail remained recoverable on a test designed to detect it (Rindal et al., 2016; Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 139–140). A memory may become modifiable when recalled, but how far this changes the original memory in people is debated, and testimony that every act of remembering rewrites or erases a memory overstates the human evidence.

Retrieval also strengthens memory. A meta-analysis found that practicing retrieval improved later retention compared with restudying, with larger benefits from recall than from recognition practice (Rowland, 2014), so an early, open-ended account can help preserve memory (“The Testing Effect,” “Remembering Changes Memory”). Remembering is reconstruction, not playback (“Reconstruction and Recall”).

Sensory, Short-Term, and Working Memory

An influential early model described brief sensory registers, a limited short-term store, and a long-term store, with rehearsal and other control processes governing transfer (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Sensory memory holds much perceptual information very briefly: people cued after a brief display of letters to report one row could report most of any row, but the information faded within about a second (Sperling, 1960). Short-term memory holds a small amount for seconds; when rehearsal was prevented, recall of three-letter strings fell sharply over about 18 seconds (Peterson & Peterson, 1959). Capacity was once put at seven items, plus or minus two (Miller, 1956), but with rehearsal and grouping controlled, adults hold about three to five meaningful units, or “chunks” (Cowan, 2001).

Baddeley and Hitch (1974) replaced the single short-term store with working memory: an attentional controller (the central executive) and separate verbal and visuospatial components, the verbal one later called the phonological loop, that hold and manipulate information for tasks such as comprehension and reasoning. Baddeley (2000) added an episodic buffer, a limited-capacity store that binds information from those components and from long-term memory into integrated episodes. In a 2025 review, the model’s authors describe the buffer as a hub linking perception, long-term memory, and executive control, and note that rival models agree on core properties such as limited capacity and rapid loss of unrehearsed information (Hitch et al., 2025).

Working memory bears on forensic questions. During a fast event, limited capacity constrains what is attended to and encoded (“Change Blindness and Inattentional Blindness”). During an interview, the witness searches memory while processing questions, so compound or rapid questions compete for the same resources; fewer, more open questions and not interrupting reduce that load (Fisher & Schreiber, 2007). Exact wording is held only briefly while meaning is retained much better (Sachs, 1967), which matters for testimony about what someone said (“Memory for Oral Communications,” “Gist Memory”).

Long-Term Memory: Declarative and Nondeclarative

Declarative memory can be consciously brought to mind and described; nondeclarative memory is expressed through performance rather than recollection. Declarative memory depends on the medial temporal lobe, including the hippocampus; skills and habits depend on structures such as the striatum; and conditioned emotional responses depend on the amygdala (Squire, 2004).

Episodic, Semantic, and Autobiographical Memory

Tulving (1972) divided declarative memory into episodic memory, for particular events at a particular time and place, and semantic memory, general knowledge not tied to the occasion of learning. Tulving held that episodic remembering involves an awareness of oneself in the past, which he called autonoetic, that semantic knowing lacks (Tulving, 1985, 2002). The line is not absolute; knowledge about one’s own life (“I worked nights that year”) falls between the two, and the systems interact in most real remembering (Renoult et al., 2019). Autobiographical memory combines both: in one influential model, a specific memory is assembled when needed from knowledge of life periods and repeated events plus event-specific details, guided by current goals and self-image (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000).

Episodic memory is the form most often at issue in court (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 20–22). “I always lock the door” draws on generic knowledge; “I remember the key sticking that night” claims an episodic memory. Both can be accurate, but they answer different questions, and testimony about one occasion may blend the two (“Episodic Memory,” “Autobiographical Memory,” “Schema and Script Memory”).

Procedural Memory, Priming, and Conditioning

Nondeclarative memory includes procedural memory for skills and habits, priming (easier or faster processing of something encountered before), and classical conditioning (Squire, 2004). In each, experience changes performance without requiring recollection of it, often called implicit memory (Schacter, 1987). The systems can come apart: a patient with damage to both amygdalae did not acquire a conditioned physiological response to a stimulus paired with a loud noise but could say which stimulus had been paired with it, while a patient with hippocampal damage acquired the conditioned response but could not report the pairing (Bechara et al., 1995).

The implications cut both ways. A face can feel familiar from prior exposure without any memory of where it was seen, the basis of concerns about mugshot exposure and unconscious transference (“Implicit Memory”). A conditioned emotional reaction to a place, smell, or person is a real effect of experience (“Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and Memory”), but because conditioning and knowledge of what happened can come apart, such a reaction does not by itself establish what event produced it, and its absence does not show that an event did not occur.

Recall and Recognition

Memory can be tested in several ways (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 19–20). In free recall, the person reports what he or she remembers with minimal cues (“Tell me everything that happened”); in cued recall, a cue directs retrieval (“What was the driver wearing?”); in recognition, the person judges whether something presented was encountered before (“Is this the man?”). An open narrative interview is a free-recall test, specific open questions are cued recall, yes-or-no and forced-choice questions are in effect recognition tests, and photo arrays, lineups, and show-ups are recognition tests of a person.

Recognition supplies a powerful cue, the item itself, and can reveal memories a person could not recall, but it is more open to errors of commission, because familiarity or a willingness to choose can produce a positive response. In laboratory studies of the cognitive interview, about 75% to 85% of witnesses’ free-report statements were accurate across many conditions, apparently because witnesses screen what they volunteer; Fisher and Schreiber (2007) noted that commission errors may be much higher and more variable in recognition tests such as lineups. The cognitive interview increases correct recall without loss of accuracy (Memon et al., 2010) but has had little effect on identification accuracy (Fisher & Schreiber, 2007). Moving from open to closed questions moves from recall toward recognition, a change in error risk that matters especially with children (“Suggestibility of Children’s Memory,” “Improving Eyewitness Memory”).

Each viewing of a suspect becomes part of memory, so a later test of the same face, including an in-court identification, is partly a test of memory for the earlier viewing. On one view, memory is reliable on an initial, uncontaminated test under sound procedures, and much error arises from later tests (Wixted & Mickes, 2022; Wixted et al., 2021); others accept the value of the initial test but caution against calling eyewitness memory generally reliable (Wade et al., 2018) (“Lineup Construction,” “Show-Ups,” “Confidence and Accuracy”).

Familiarity and Recollection

Recognition can rest on two experiences. Recollection is retrieval of specific details of a prior encounter, such as where and when; familiarity is a sense of prior encounter without those details. Mandler’s (1980) example is a familiar person on a bus who cannot be placed until recognized as the local butcher. A review of three decades of research concluded that the two can be separated experimentally and in patients with brain injury (Yonelinas, 2002); others argue that recognition decisions are well described by a single continuous memory-strength signal to which both contribute (Wixted, 2007). The question is unresolved (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 22–25).

Familiarity can lead a witness to choose a person seen in another setting, such as an innocent bystander; in one series of experiments, most witnesses who made this error remembered the bystander but concluded that he and the culprit were the same person (Ross et al., 1994, pp. 923–924), and a meta-analysis found that prior mugshot exposure reduced the accuracy of later lineup identifications and increased choices of the person whose photograph had been seen (Deffenbacher et al., 2006). Commitment to an earlier choice is a further mechanism; commitment, familiarity, and source misattribution are not mutually exclusive (see “Mug Books and Mugshot Exposure”). Under a dual-process view, familiarity alone is an unsafe basis for an identification (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 50–51). Recollection reports, by contrast, carry diagnostic information: in a study of 502 participant-witnesses, reports of recollecting the culprit distinguished correct from incorrect identifications, and a graded recollection rating added information beyond confidence (Palmer et al., 2010). People also recognize genuinely familiar persons from images much more accurately than strangers (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 52–53) (“Unconscious Transference,” “Mug Books and Mugshot Exposure”).

Limits of the Evidence

These distinctions come largely from laboratory research with word lists, pictures, or filmed events, student participants, short delays, and no stakes. Some foundational studies are old and small; Bechara et al. (1995) studied three patients. The categories are theoretical constructs, and researchers still debate whether short-term memory is a separate store or activated long-term memory, whether familiarity and recollection are distinct processes, and whether human memories are modified through reconsolidation. Brain-system findings rest substantially on animal and patient research and cannot classify an individual’s memory as true or false. The research describes groups under studied conditions; it cannot establish whether a particular witness is accurate.

Questions to Ask About This Research

Counsel should ask which kind of test the research used and which the witness faced: the 75% to 85% accuracy reported by Fisher and Schreiber (2007) came from free reports in laboratory interviews, not lineups or yes-or-no questions. When reconsolidation is offered to suggest that a memory was rewritten with each recall, counsel should ask whether the supporting studies involved people or animals, and how the expert accounts for Rindal et al. (2016), in which the original detail remained recoverable, and for the unsuccessful replication by Stemerding et al. (2022). When familiarity is said to explain an identification, counsel should ask whether there is evidence of a specific prior exposure, as in Ross et al. (1994) and Deffenbacher et al. (2006), and whether the witness reported recollecting details, which Palmer et al. (2010) found informative. These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.

Types and Stages of Memory and the Law

Federal and Military Standards

Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2023, requires the proponent to show that it is more likely than not that expert testimony will help the trier of fact, rests on sufficient facts or data and reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) described helpfulness as a question of “fit” between the research and a disputed issue, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extended the gatekeeping obligation to all expert testimony, including technical or other specialized knowledge. The distinctions in this paper often decide fit: research on lineup recognition does not automatically fit a dispute about recall of a conversation, nor research on unfamiliar faces an identification of an acquaintance. Federal Rule of Evidence 701 limits lay opinion to what is rationally based on the witness’s perception and excludes opinion based on specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. A witness may testify to what he or she remembers and how certain he or she is; an explanation of why memory of that kind may be unreliable is expert testimony.

In courts-martial, Military Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 track the federal rules. Under Military Rule of Evidence 1102, federal amendments generally apply eighteen months after their effective date unless the President directs otherwise, and the 2023 amendment to Rule 702 accordingly took effect in the military rule in 2025 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025); practitioners should confirm the current text. Military judges assess expert testimony under United States v. Houser (1993), whose factors include proper subject matter, relevance, and reliability.

Arizona

Arizona Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 follow the federal language; Rule 702 adopted the Daubert standard effective January 1, 2012, and was amended effective January 1, 2024, to conform to the 2023 federal amendment (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004). State v. Chapple (1983), Arizona’s leading case on eyewitness expert testimony, held exclusion of such testimony an abuse of discretion on its facts, while admission otherwise remains discretionary (State v. Nordstrom, 2001), and State v. Salazar-Mercado (2014) permits general, educational expert testimony that satisfies Rules 702 and 403. Experts may describe general principles but may not opine on whether a particular witness is truthful or accurate (State v. Lindsey, 1986, 149 Ariz. at 475; State v. Moran, 1986).

Special Issues in Legal Practice

The principles described above apply with equal force to every party in a legal proceeding. The science operates the same way regardless of who is asking the questions, and the research summarized here does not by itself favor either side. What differs between the parties is not the science but the vantage point — the particular places where these issues tend to surface, and the particular errors each party is best positioned to guard against. The two summaries below identify those recurring issues. They are offered for orientation, not as litigation strategy; in every case the controlling question is what the evidence in that case will, and will not, support, and the expert’s role is to inform the trier of fact rather than to advocate for either side.

Special Issues for Prosecutors

The research supports several propositions prosecutors can legitimately present. Free reports in response to open questions are generally accurate in laboratory studies, and failure to recall a detail on one occasion does not show it was never stored, so a later recalled detail is not by itself a sign of fabrication. An initial, well-documented account or identification under sound procedures carries particular evidential value, familiar persons are recognized much more accurately than strangers, and the human evidence does not support claims that remembering rewrites memory. Prosecutors are well positioned to ensure that early accounts are elicited with open questions and recorded.

The research also counsels caution. Closed questions, recognition tests, and repeated identifications carry error risks that free recall does not, so a yes-or-no answer or an identification should not be credited as though it had the accuracy of a free narrative, and an in-court identification after earlier viewings is partly a test of memory for those viewings. Testimony about a specific occasion may blend episodic memory with general knowledge, and presenting a conditioned emotional reaction as proof of a particular event goes beyond the research.

Special Issues for Defense

The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. Encoding is limited by attention and working memory, and cues supplied by questioners can shape what is reported. Lineups and closed questions are more open to errors of commission than free recall, familiarity without recollection can lead to identifying a person seen in another context, and repeated testing of a suspect’s face can contaminate later tests.

The research also counsels caution. Memory for the main points of an experience is often accurate, a later recalled detail is not by itself suspect, and claims that remembering rewrites memory overstate the evidence. Familiarity-based error is a concern where there is evidence of a specific prior exposure, not a general reason to doubt every identification, and a witness’s report of recollection can help distinguish accurate from inaccurate identifications. An expert may not tell the factfinder that a particular witness’s memory is mistaken, and the same principles apply to the accused’s own recollection.

This paper is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. The author is a psychologist, not an attorney; summaries of law are general and must be verified against current authority or with a licensed attorney.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1

Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Adolphs, R., Rockland, C., & Damasio, A. R. (1995). Double dissociation of conditioning and declarative knowledge relative to the amygdala and hippocampus in humans. Science, 269(5227), 1115–1118. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7652558

Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9008-1

Elsey, J. W. B., Van Ast, V. A., & Kindt, M. (2018). Human memory reconsolidation: A guiding framework and critical review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(8), 797–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000152

Fisher, R. P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interview protocols to improve eyewitness memory. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. 1. Memory for events (pp. 53–80). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hitch, G. J., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2025). The multicomponent model of working memory fifty years on. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241290909

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. (2025). Amendments to the Military Rules of Evidence since 1984 (G. E. Maggs, Ed.; 2025 ed.). https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/MRE%20Amendments%202025.pdf

Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.

Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.252

McGaugh, J. L. (2000). Memory—A century of consolidation. Science, 287(5451), 248–251. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5451.248

Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 340–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518

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

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

Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., McKinnon, A. C., & Weber, N. (2010). Phenomenological reports diagnose accuracy of eyewitness identification decisions. Acta Psychologica, 133(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.11.002

Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049234

Renoult, L., Irish, M., Moscovitch, M., & Rugg, M. D. (2019). From knowing to remembering: The semantic–episodic distinction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(12), 1041–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.09.008

Rindal, E. J., DeFranco, R. M., Rich, P. R., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2016). Does reactivating a witnessed memory increase its susceptibility to impairment by subsequent misinformation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1544–1558. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000265

Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 918–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.918

Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559

Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2(9), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208784

Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(3), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.3.501

Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74(11), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093759

Squire, L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 82(3), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2004.06.005

Stemerding, L. E., Stibbe, D., van Ast, V. A., & Kindt, M. (2022). Demarcating the boundary conditions of memory reconsolidation: An unsuccessful replication. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 2285. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06119-5

Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). Academic Press.

Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017

Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114

Tulving, E., & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80048-8

Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020071

Wade, K. A., Nash, R. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2018). Reasons to doubt the reliability of eyewitness memory: Commentary on Wixted, Mickes, and Fisher (2018). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618758261

Wixted, J. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 152–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.152

Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2022). Eyewitness memory is reliable, but the criminal justice system is not. Memory, 30(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1974485

Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a witness’s memory of a suspect only once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1, Suppl.), 1S–18S. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211026259

Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864

Legal Authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).

State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).

State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 728 P.2d 248 (1986).

State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001).

State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 325 P.3d 996 (2014).

United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).

Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702.

Mil. R. Evid. 701, 702, 1102.

Ariz. R. Evid. 701, 702.

Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004 (amending Ariz. R. Evid. 702, effective Jan. 1, 2024).

Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Alcohol Blackouts: Alcohol Blackout / Amnesia · Courts-Martial