Sources

542 sources

Source

Cao et al. (2025)

Analyzing Memory Effects in Large Language Models through the lens of Cognitive Psychology

arXiv

Find It

DOI

Abstract

Memory, a fundamental component of human cognition, exhibits adaptive yet fallible characteristics as illustrated by Schacter's memory "sins".These cognitive phenomena have been studied extensively in psychology and neuroscience, but the extent to which artificial systems, specifically Large Language Models (LLMs), emulate these cognitive phenomena remains underexplored. This study uses human memory research as a lens for understanding LLMs and systematically investigates human memory effects in state-of-the-art LLMs using paradigms drawn from psychological research. We evaluate seven key memory phenomena, comparing human behavior to LLM performance. Both people and models remember less when overloaded with information (list length effect) and remember better with repeated exposure (list strength effect). They also show similar difficulties when retrieving overlapping information, where storing too many similar facts leads to confusion (fan effect). Like humans, LLMs are susceptible to falsely "remembering" words that were never shown but are related to others (false memories), and they can apply prior learning to new, related situations (cross-domain generalization). However, LLMs differ in two key ways: they are less influenced by the order in which information is presented (positional bias) and more robust when processing random or meaningless material (nonsense effect). These results reveal both alignments and divergences in how LLMs and humans reconstruct memory. The findings help clarify how memory-like behavior in LLMs echoes core features of human cognition, while also highlighting the architectural differences that lead to distinct patterns of error and success.

Reference

Cao, Z., Schooler, L., & Zafarani, R. (2025). Analyzing memory effects in large language models through the lens of cognitive psychology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17138.

What Rests on This

3 mechanisms cite this source. Each finding below is quoted as it appears on that mechanism's own page.

Episodic Memory Memory Systems

  • Measured in AI

    A 2025 preprint gave GPT-4 (with Mistral and Llama checks) word lists from the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm and found perfect recall with no primacy or recency effect, set against published human serial-position curves; because the list stayed in view for the model, exceeding people is not counted

Schema Application Representational Structures

  • Measured in AI

    A 2025 preprint ran the DRM false-memory task on three language models with the word lists kept in the context window, meaning the text the model can see in the current conversation; GPT-4 recognized all studied words, falsely recognized 5.3% of unrelated words and 11.4% of critical lures, while Mistral-7B and Llama-3-8B falsely recognized essentially no lures

  • Measured in AI

    Not yet compared: the classic schema paradigms have been given to AI, but the only same-scale result (DRM) favours the side that could see the material, the story-retelling and Bartlett studies report only qualitative or regression-slope matches, and the retrieval study has no human data

Retrieval Interference Memory Processes

  • Measured in AI

    A second, weaker comparison in the context window: a 2025 preprint gave GPT-4 (a 2024 version) a 32-pair person-location recognition test with the study list in the same prompt, and d' fell from about 4.1 at fan 1 to 3.1 at fan 2; smaller open models (Mistral-7B, Llama-3-8B) showed the same trend at lower accuracy