Metcalfe J
Department of Psychology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1991 Sep;120(3):313-5. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.120.3.313.
Lindsay (1991), in his comment CHARMed, but not Convinced: Comment on Metcalfe (1990), acknowledged that distributed models of human memory using the construct of a composite memory trace, such as the Composite Holographic Associative Recall Model (CHARM), are able to account for most of the findings within the eyewitness-testimony paradigm. Despite this success, Lindsay found CHARM to be of limited usefulness as a model of eyewitness suggestibility. The reasons stated for this peculiar conclusion are discussed in this rebuttal.
林赛（1991年）在其评论文章《有吸引力，但未被说服：对梅特卡夫（1990年）的评论》中承认，使用复合记忆痕迹这一概念的人类记忆分布式模型，比如复合全息关联回忆模型（CHARM），能够解释目击证人证词范式中的大部分研究结果。尽管取得了这一成功，林赛发现CHARM作为目击证人易受暗示性的模型，其作用有限。本反驳文章将讨论得出这一特殊结论的原因。
