ABSTRACT
In recent years, work on memory expertise, most notably by Ericsson and his colleagues, has strongly supported the case for regarding memory processes as parallel to other types of skill and amenable to similar effects of training and practice. We argue that well-practiced techniques cannot explain all cases of exceptional performance in the literature, and suggest some criteria for discriminating between strategy-based and “natural” superiority in memory performance. These criteria enable us to identify some individuals whose memory is of the latter type. We suggest some research questions following from this conclusion and ways in which these might be pursued. Finally, we consider directions in which research on mnemonics might be developed with advantage.
