Editing Short-term memory (section)

== Duration ==
The limited duration of short-term memory (~18 seconds without [[Memory rehearsal|rehearsal]])<ref name="Revlin20122">{{cite book |first=Russell |last=Revlin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tuCBGepl2VMC |title=Cognition: Theory and Practice |date=24 February 2012 |publisher=Worth Publishers |isbn=978-0-7167-5667-5}}</ref> suggests that its contents spontaneously decay over time.<ref>{{cite book |vauthors=Cowan N |chapter=Chapter 20 What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? |date=March 2009 |title=Essence of Memory |series=Progress in Brain Research |publisher=Prog Brain Res. |volume=169 |pages=323–338 |doi=10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9 |pmc=2657600 |pmid=18394484|isbn=978-0-444-53164-3 }}</ref>{{citation needed|date=October 2018}} The decay assumption is part of many theories of short-term memory. The most notable one is [[Baddeley's model of working memory|Baddeley's model]] of working memory. The decay assumption is usually paired with the idea of rapid covert rehearsal: to retain information for longer, information must be periodically repeated or rehearsed, either by articulating it out loud or by mental simulation. Another type of rehearsal that can improve short-term memory is attention-based rehearsal. Information is mentally searched in a particular sequence.<ref name="Jonides 193–2242" /> Once recalled, the information re-enters short-term memory and is then retained for a further period.

Nairn and Lewandosky et al. dispute that spontaneous decay plays any significant role in short-term forgetting,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lewandowsky |first1=S. |last2=Duncan |first2=M. |last3=Brown |first3=G. D. A. |year=2004 |title=Time does not cause forgetting in short-term serial recall |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=771–790 |doi=10.3758/BF03196705 |pmid=15732687 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nairne |first1=J. S. |year=2002 |title=Remembering over the short-term: The case against the standard model |journal=[[Annual Review of Psychology]] |volume=53 |pages=53–81 |doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135131 |pmid=11752479}}</ref> and the evidence is not conclusive.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jonides |first1=J. |last2=Lewis |first2=R. L. |last3=Nee |first3=D. E. |last4=Lustig |first4=C. A. |last5=Berman |first5=M. G. |last6=Moore |first6=K. S. |year=2008 |title=The mind and brain of short-term memory |journal=[[Annual Review of Psychology]] |volume=59 |pages=193–224 |doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093615 |pmc=3971378 |pmid=17854286}}</ref>

One alternative asserts that several elements (such as [[Numerical digit|digits]], [[word]]s, or pictures, or logos) are held in short-term memory simultaneously, their representations compete with each other for recall, degrading each other. Thereby, new content gradually replaces older content, unless the older content is actively protected.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Oberauer |first1=K. |last2=Kliegl |first2=R. |year=2006 |title=A formal model of capacity limits in working memory |journal=Journal of Memory and Language |volume=55 |issue=4 |pages=601–626 |doi=10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.009 |doi-access=free}}</ref>