Formal Modeling as Theoretical Glue Between Laboratory and Naturalistic Studies of Memory

Memory research has evolved along two distinct traditions: well-controlled laboratory experiments emphasizing precision and tractability and naturalistic-memory experiments emphasizing generalization to real-world contexts. Although both have yielded important insights, we do not yet have a generalized theory of memory consistently interpreted across laboratory and naturalistic paradigms. By analyzing the strengths and limitations of the two traditions, I propose that formal modeling is the key to creating this theoretical link. A formal theory, instantiated in precise computational models that are developed over decades of laboratory-based experiments, needs naturalistic experiments to test its generalizability and reveal its limitations. Naturalistic experiments, in turn, better connect with existing laboratory paradigms when their results are explained by the same theoretical model. To achieve this, I propose a step-by-step procedure in which naturalistic settings are considered as all possible scenarios that could be realized in the real world, with laboratory settings forming a smaller subset that we have understood well. Our goal as memory researchers is to incrementally expand the scope of existing laboratory studies, theories, and models to account for increasingly naturalistic scenarios, ultimately achieving a generalized theory of memory. Together, the proposed framework no longer views laboratory versus naturalistic approaches as a trade-off to navigate, given their different priorities and methodologies, but considers them both essential in working toward the same goal.