Kim Mills: It is one of memory’s strangest tricks. You’re visiting a new city, one you’ve never been to before, when you turn a corner and suddenly you get the overwhelming sense you’ve been there before. You can’t shake the feeling, even though your rational mind knows that it can’t be true. That fleeting, eerie sensation—déjà vu—has puzzled psychologists for more than a century. Now, researchers are learning more about the causes of déjà vu, as well as its lesser known opposite, jamais vu, when a previously known thing seems suddenly strange and unfamiliar.
So why do déjà vu and jamais vu happen? Why does our brain play these tricks on us? Are some people more prone to déjà vu and jamais vu than others? How do you study these sensations in the lab and what can studying them teach us about memory more broadly?
Welcome to Speaking of Psychology, the flagship podcast of the American Psychological Association that examines the links between psychological science and everyday life. I’m Kim Mills.
My guest today is Dr. Chris Moulin, a professor in the laboratory of psychology and neurocognition at Grenoble Alps University in France. He’s a cognitive neuropsychologist known for his work on memory, especially déjà vu and jamais vu. He’s the author of hundreds of scientific studies as well as the book The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Déjà Vu. And finally, his work on jamais vu won a 2023 IgNobel Prize, an annual award given for scientific research that makes people laugh and then makes them think.
Dr. Moulin, thank you for joining me today.
Chris Moulin, PhD: Thank you very much for having me.
Mills: We’re going to talk about both déjà vu and jamais vu and some related phenomena, but let’s start with déjà vu, which I would imagine most of us have heard of. I mentioned a classic example of déjà vu in the introduction, when a place you’ve never been before seems familiar and you have the sense that you’ve been there. Are there other types of déjà vu or other examples of when this happens?
Moulin: So that is the classic example, to find yourself in a place where you’ve never been before and feel like you’ve been there before. So we know that there’s a kind of sense of place involved in déjà vu. But it’s not the only kind. The people who fill in my questionnaires tell me that it often arrives in conversations, a conversation you might be having at a party or something like that, and you’ll have the sensation that you’ve had the same conversation before. So we think it happens for pretty much most of the things that you can be conscious of and you can think about. But certainly right up there is places—we seem to have it more for places than for other things.
Interestingly, one of the strange data sets that we have to explain is the reason why people in our questionnaires also seem to have more déjà vu the more they travel, which is a very interesting idea, especially if you think it’s to do with the places you visit. It seems the more likely you are to go to novel places, the more likely you are to experience déjà vu, which is a very interesting idea.
Mills: So it sounds like that’s one of the triggers, travel. Are there other things that may trigger déjà vu?
Moulin: So for déjà vu, one of the things we have to think about is who’s having the déjà vu? So let’s just talk now about healthy déjà vu. And we do know that there are some triggers for healthy déjà vu—that’s for people like you and I who may have this rarely, and there’s no kind of neurological reason why we’re having déjà vu, and we might have it more when we’re tired. It seems that we might have it more when we are stressed. Travel is a big idea. You have it more when you are young than when you are older. And there’s some research, but I think we need to do some more work on those kinds of things, which suggests that you have déjà vu, not necessarily whilst you are intoxicated, but having been intoxicated with drink and drugs for instance.
So there’s some interesting data about those kinds of things, but essentially I’m telling you about general patterns from questionnaire research. I think it’s best to characterize déjà vu as being unpredictable. So we know you get it more in places than for other things, but you can get it in conversations. And I think the main thing about déjà vu is that it’s unpredictable and you don’t know when it’s going to strike.
Mills: Is there any reasons or any research behind why younger people may have it more often than older folks?
Moulin: The first reason that could explain this pattern of data would be that older people have déjà vu the same amount, but they just forget that they’ve had it because it’s pretty infrequent and pretty rare. So maybe they do have it as much, but they’ve forgotten about it. We’ve tried to control for that by asking people about the last time they had it and asking people to remember a specific instance of it. So we think it’s not that.
What we think is that this is the first piece of evidence in our idea that déjà vu is a healthy thing and a good thing. So we like to describe it as a fact checking mechanism. As you get older, there’s very subtle, but real changes in your memory, which mean you’re not quite so able to verify the certainty that something has not yet happened to you.
So in my daily life as I get older, I have far fewer experiences of déjà vu, but what I have instead is a bit more that horrible hesitation: Have I already made this joke? I feel like I’m repeating myself, feel like I probably am repeating myself. So I think as you get older, that relationship with your memory changes—and we call that metacognition—so that you are less aware of what’s going on in your memory system. And as you get older, you just lack that kind of certainty that it’s impossible that you’ve already had this conversation or it’s impossible, that feeling you’ve already been here. More likely as you get older, you might say, well, I probably read about this place in a book, or it’s very similar to some other place that I’ve been, so your interpretation of the same feeling possibly changes as you get older. And that’s probably our best case explanation for that.
But already, again, a very interesting piece of data for us because if you think that memory gets worse as you get older, you’d expect to have more déjà vu, f you’re saying that memory is behind déjà vu, like déjà vu is a memory error, but in fact you get the opposite. So that’s really why we come to this idea of, it’s not quite about memory, it’s about your relationship with your memory.
Mills: You’ve worked with patients with epilepsy and dementia who have chronic déjà vu. That is, they have a constant sense that everything that’s happening to them is familiar. Can you talk about that? Why does that happen and what’s life for those patients?
Moulin: Yeah, so my whole entry point into researching déjà vu was through looking at somebody, working closely with somebody who had a permanent sense of déjà vu, at least his family and his doctors all described it as a permanent sense of déjà vu. And I was a young neuropsychologist just out of my PhD at that time, and I looked up in a book déjà vu and I thought, well, there’ll be an explanation of why this person’s got déjà vu. And in fact, there was nothing similar and his case was very extreme. Subsequently, we’ve identified other people that are the same, but for instance, when he came to the memory clinic, he said there was no point doing my memory tests. He’d already done them all before. He said that every conversation was repeating, that he’d already met me. When I turned up at his house to do some research with him, he refused to watch television, saying that everything was repeating on the television.
He was an engineer and he still, he had subscriptions to scientific journals, and I like this one the most—he stopped reading his scientific journals saying that he’d read everything in them already before. And that’s sometimes an experience that us scientists have anyway in general. So his life was very, very difficult, certainly for his wife. She was very patient and was very interested in the research and saw the kind of philosophical side of things, but it was constant torment from the moment he woke up, he was saying that he’d already had that conversation, that he’d already done all the things and the chores that he needed to be doing in the house. So it really was more like being stuck in the present moment, more like anything like déjà vu. So we did some research with him and identified memory mechanisms and brain mechanisms that were involved, and that was really interesting work, and that launched my interest in déjà vu.
But of course it took me a bit of time to realize, but that’s not actually what déjà vu is. When we have déjà vu, we are aware that we’re having a déjà vu. So he was not aware that he had this kind of problem. So one of the things his wife used to ask him is like, okay, if you’ve watched this TV program before, can you tell me what’s going to happen next? And his response was very canny, he used to reply, well, how should I know what happens next? I’ve got a memory problem. So he was kind of aware that he had difficulties with his memory, but he was not aware that he had this constant feeling of repetition, that his life was repeated.
So again, that helps us converge on what déjà vu is because for us, déjà vu is this conflict, this sense that it feels like it’s familiar, but I know it’s not. And we think with him and the other patients who are similar, all of whom have had this kind of dementia pattern and have been older adults, and it is very, very rare, they’ve all had this kind of permanent sense of familiarity and instead of being able to reject the sense of familiarity as something false and erroneous, these patients actually accept it and then kind of work with it and embellish it and add details to it and so on and so forth. So those are very interesting cases and that launched my interest in déjà vu. But I think the most important thing to underline there is it’s not déjà vu. And I actually regret ever using the word déjà vu, but that’s how everybody describes it. The carers and the doctors involved, they all say, this guy’s got permanent déjà vu.
And then you asked about epilepsy, my interest in epilepsy came a bit afterwards. The only kind of scientific studies of déjà vu for maybe a hundred years were within the domain of the study of epilepsy. So it’s long been known that certain people, not everybody, certain people with epilepsy report déjà vu which is associated with seizure activity. So before or maybe just during seizure activity. And as a result, if we wanted to research déjà vu, they seem like a very helpful group of people to help us better understand what’s going on. Certainly for some people with epilepsy, déjà vu is clinically relevant because it can signal that they’re about to have a seizure, which is something they need to know about. But also for us wanting to better understand déjà vu, with those people at least déjà vu appears to be more frequent and more predictable. So that helps us get a handle on what’s going on in déjà vu. And unlike the patients with dementia, we do believe that there’s no difference between the déjà vu experienced by people with and without epilepsy. It’s a very similar kind of thing, except you might imagine that in epilepsy it’s due to neuronal communication and electrical activity, which is in some way disrupted. But that’s not the same case for us necessarily, although that’s a story where we need more research.
Mills: Now there is sort of the opposite of déjà vu, which is called jamais vu—now that’s something that you’ve never experienced. Can you tell us a little bit more about what that is? The term I believe is not that widely known, but people recognize the sensation.
Moulin: So exactly. When we do questionnaires on jamais vu, we have to help people understand what it is we’re trying to talk about. And happily people do understand and identify this experience. So jamais vu happens in daily life most frequently for things like spelling and using words. So you may have had this experience, I definitely have had it, where you are using a word and all of a sudden, even though the word is spelled right and you’ve produced it correctly, there’s something wrong. It feels like it’s not right. So once I had it for the word “this.” I was using the word this, and all of a sudden it was like, well, this isn’t how it’s spelled. This can’t be right. It seems pretty common for words at least—that seems to be the most common version.
But when I talk to people about it, and again, I’ll talk about my own experience and hope that I’m not the only person to have had such things. I once had it quite profoundly looking at my father’s face, and it was like, wow, this was like, I knew it was my father. There was no way in which I didn’t recognize him, but I was looking at him thinking, wow, there’s something strange about this. It’s a strange kind of idea that that is my father. And it’s almost like you see your father’s face with fresh eyes. You come to something fresh and you have this kind of sense of novelty like you’re seeing something for the first time, even though it’s your father, and there’s no question that you wouldn’t recognize him. It’s more like the recognition seems strange in some way. So in jamais vu, just like with déjà vu—they are opposites, but the key experience is this experience of strangeness and a conflict between two evaluations.
So the conflict in déjà vu is that it’s new. It’s something you’ve never talked about before or a place you’ve never been before, but somehow it feels like it’s familiar. And then you have the opposite with jamais vu, with the opposite being that this is a word that you’ve used and you can write it perfectly well, but somehow it looks strange or it looks wrong, or you have to double check what you’re doing. And exactly the same with people’s faces. And it goes on—Akira O’Connor, who’s my main partner in crime with this research work that we do together, he says he’s had jamais vu for driving, to the extent that he was really unsure of what he was doing and what pedal was doing what in the car.
Mills: Wow. That's a little scary.
Moulin: It is a little scary. Well, he pulled over. He is a sensible chap. But when those things happen, they’re very, very rare. But again, that’s another kind of piece of evidence as to what’s happening in jamais, because driving is a very fluent automatic behavior. And we find in the lab the easiest way to generate jamais vu is by another very fluent automatic behavior, which is writing. And we ask people to repeatedly write the same word until they feel pretty strange about the word. And that’s the work for which we won the IgNobel Prize, because it’s a pretty strange thing to do. In fact, when we designed the experiment, it was based on my experience of punishment at school where I had to write lines and write the same sentence over and over again. I will not talk in French class, I think it was, but I can’t remember. And I realized that writing this sentence over and over again, I must’ve been about 12, really made me feel strange. And it wasn’t an unpleasant sensation, but it was very strange. So I guess nearly 20 years later I came to the idea, oh, that could be a cool way of invoking these strange sensations, these conflicts between familiarity and lack of familiarity.
Mills: So you can instigate jamais vu, but can you in a lab instigate déjà vu? I mean, how do you study it since it’s such a fleeting subjective thing?
Moulin: Yeah, that’s a good question. So the first thing is that déjà vu took a bit of time to get going as an experimental concern. And I think there’s two reasons for that. The first reason is that subjective experiences kind of fell out of grace in psychology. But since the 1980s, we’ve been able to tackle subjective experiences head on. But that’s kind of a historical note.
The second issue is we were kind of waiting for a theoretical entity that might be useful to better understand déjà vu, because it didn’t seem easy to classify what déjà vu was. In the title, it’s déjà vu, it’s about vision. So we tend to think it’s about what we see and perception, but in fact, the best theoretical entity is familiarity. So familiarity is supposed to be a memory process, which we know quite a lot about. So you can have familiarity for concepts which may just feel like about them without really being able to retrieve too much about them.
So the examples are things like when you are a child, you are very familiar with a concept, let’s say like a home computer. You had a home computer for five years and it was called an Acorn Electron. And then 20, 30 years later in your life, you might encounter something like that Acorn Electron in a different concept. It’s now the name of a rock group or something like that. And what you may find is familiarity. You may have this, wow, that rings some bells. That means something to me, that concept. And so familiarity is kind of one of the cornerstones of how memory works in daily life, and we think it operates when you hear this Acorn Electron kind of idea, you’re like, oh, okay, well that feels familiar to me. Well, why? And then you can coordinate your memory processes to try and research for things in memory.
So given that this entity familiarity exists, that’s really what we can pin déjà vu research on. And here, to cut a long story short, I think there’s some really elegant experiments which are done, which kind of provoke déjà vu in the lab. And I can really praise these experiments and say how elegant and wonderful I think they are, because in fact, I’m not responsible for any of them. Anne Cleary who’s done a lot of research on déjà vu, she’s used, I think my favorite experiment of hers uses virtual reality. And what she does is she provokes this sense of familiarity by using similarity. And since the 19th century, one of the ideas about what causes déjà vu is a similarity between something you’ve encountered previously in your life and something which you encounter now where you can’t identify that source of familiarity.
So in the daily life, you might go into your friend’s flat for the first time, your friend’s apartment for the first time, and the layout of the apartment is such that there’s the window in front of you and the fireplace, the left of you and the sofa and the TV. And in fact, that configuration matches exactly something that you’ve already seen before in your life. You can’t remember what it is, but that’s enough to provoke this sense of familiarity. So Anne Cleary, she’s looked at that in virtual reality because it’s quite easy to set up those kinds of things in experimental situations and that she can provoke feelings of déjà vu and people report freely that they’ve had déjà vu or something like it generated in her experiments. So that’s really neat. And then she’s taken that in lots of other different directions.
And then the other series of experiments, which is similar, are run by Akira O’Connor. And he’s used pretty much a similar technique, but with words. And his thing is all about generating the conflict which is in déjà vu. So he does this really neat thing. He asks people to learn lists of words, which is something we do. That’s our bread and butter, that’s what I’m paid to do mostly. He gets people to learn list of words, and for each word they have to learn to have to note down the first letter of the word. So they’re doing something at the same time as looking at the word, and he keeps the note of that, and he uses that with them later when he tests them.
So there’s this neat effect which we see often in memory experiments, which is if you learn a set of related information, it will give you a false memory and strong familiarity for something that you haven’t learned. So if I give you a list of words to learn, which is like doze, rest, blanket, bed, snore, pillow, tired, et cetera, and then a bit later on I show you the word sleep, you’ll think that you’ve seen the word sleep. Now, I didn’t give you the word sleep, so that’s like a kind of false memory paradigm, but what you have for the word sleep is familiarity.
So what Akira did, which is really novel, was he did that kind of experiment, which is fairly standard in the experimental psychology. But the new thing he did was to ask people to look at the numbers of words that started with a certain letter. So at the same time as presenting them with the word sleep, he also presented them with the information that no words that they actually saw on the list began with an S. So that is exactly like the conflict that’s inherent in déjà vu. And I think that’s a really neat demonstration of really what’s going. It’s like that. It’s like that. Well, sleep feels familiar. Yes, yes, I’ve encountered that before, but hang on, it’s impossible.
Mills: So are there brain imaging studies that help you to understand what’s going on in people’s brains when they’re having these experiences?
Moulin: Yeah, so that’s a good question. In healthy subjects, Akira has done that work as well. So we know that when people are having something like a déjà vu experience, that it’s the prefrontal cortex which is activated, and the prefrontal cortex is proposed to be involved in this kind of detection of conflict. And it’s kind of a higher order system, which kind of watches what’s going on beneath it if you see what it means. So it’s there to control and coordinate what’s happening in memory. So that’s consistent with this kind of aspect, which is about detecting conflict and your relationship with your memory rather than memory itself. That’s one kind of avenue of research. There’s not a lot of neuroimaging research done on healthy populations. What there’s more of is kind of classic neuropsychology, so good old neuropsychology on volunteers who are very keen to help us on research who have epilepsy for instance, or even acquired brain injury.
And those people with déjà vu, we can converge on the fact that there’s definitely implication of the temporal lobes and the areas which we know are responsible for memory. And the particular zone is the zone which is described as being parahippocampal. So the hippocampus is what we teach our students in the first year of their undergraduate degrees that is the area which is responsible for memory, but just outside that area in the brain just connected to it is another zone which is responsible for familiarity. So it’s no surprise that this intense sensation of familiarity is associated to activation in that area.
And we’ve actually known that for quite a long time because of the studies or the pioneering studies in epilepsy trying to understand different kinds of epileptic focus and the changes that people experience in daily life with those things. So there’s kind of two zones that are involved. It would be the temporal lobes for this kind of familiarity part, and then the prefrontal cortex, which is in some way monitoring what’s going on in the temporal lobes. So we can imagine those two different zones are involved.
Mills: It seems that there are a number of these types of experiences that you studied that are all related. There’re also déjà reve, which has to do with dreaming. Can you just explain, run through what some of these others are and how they’re related?
Moulin: Yeah. Well, I think there’s almost a jokey response to this in which I like to point out that some researchers in déjà vu have tried to “discover,” in quotation marks, as many different forms of déjà vu that exist as possible. And for me, certainly living in France, it seems like they’re just running through their French past participles that they’ve learned. So you can imagine there’s déjà vu, déjà reve, which is to have already dreamt, and we can go on and on. There’s de déjà senti, which is already felt. And some researchers who are not motivated by the same scientific concerns as me would identify really 20, 30 different types of déjà vu. Déjà reve is something which is beginning to gather scientific interest, and we think it would be distinct from déjà vu.
And it’s this sensation of having already dreamt something or experiencing something which feels to you like you’d already experienced it in a dream in epileptic patients. It’s a bit of a different concern, I think, because it seems that there might be kind of reactivation of material that was indeed experienced as part of a dream. I think with the people that I work with, when I talk about déjà vu, I think, and I remember thinking this myself before I studied psychology, déjà vu is pretty weird. And when you have it, you’re trying to explain to yourself why it is that you find something familiar. And I think without wanting to kind of trick yourself, you nonetheless think that, well, a pretty good bet is that I dreamt something like this and now I’m encountering it again. And it seems to be like a natural interpretation of this sense of familiarity that you are now encountering something that you already dreamt.
And that’s an idea that’s entered into kind of popular thought because that was Jung’s idea of what déjà vu was. And Freud and Jung both thought that there was kind of this aspect of the unconscious and the dream state, which was related to déjà vu. I think we just need more research, but I mean, there’s data that shows that there’s definitely something going on. People who remember their dreams are more likely to have déjà vu, and that’s the finding that’s been replicated across different research labs and in different studies. So there seems to be something going on with dreaming, and I’m not quite prepared to say what that is yet. But there it’s certainly something very interesting.
And then for the other types of déjà vu, I try not to proliferate the different types of déjà vu. I think my job is to generate plausible accounts of déjà vu based on the memory systems. And I think there might be a weaker form which is more about familiarity and a stronger form, which is more about really believing that you can remember something which might give you the feeling that you are about to predict what’s about to happen next. So not everybody, we think in our questionnaires about 20% of the time when you have déjà vu, you also have the feeling that you can predict what’s going to happen next. I think we need to start looking at that aspect of things as well, because that might be a stronger different form of déjà vu than the form where you just have a vague sensation of familiarity.
Mills: People who regularly listen to this podcast probably know that I have a particular fascination with odd psychological syndromes. And there is another one that is, it sounds like it might be related to jamais vu, which is Capgras syndrome, where people don’t recognize their own loved ones, think that they’re strangers. Is this an extreme version of jamais vu or is it something else totally?
Moulin: I am very pleased you asked that because I think that’s possible. I think that’s one way of looking at it. And I think you and I share the same kind of passions for psychology because I think having worked with all kinds of people with all kinds of psychological and cognitive difficulties, I really believe that there’s nothing that unusual that you can experience in terms of psychological disturbance, like in Capgras, which doesn’t have an equivalent in our own daily lives.
I think it’s more severe and more problematic and debilitating. But yes, I think the jamais vu thing, we can give people jamais vu with faces. You do it with famous faces and you can just saturate the face of people just have to repeatedly look at the same face and eventually it will begin to feel a bit different. So we know that inducing jamais vu is all about this kind of idea of repetition of things that are very automatic. And indeed our research goal was to try and understand the link between jamais vu and that sensation that, okay, it looks real, but it’s not real.
I mean, that sounds exactly like Capgras delusion, but it’s in fact, it’s not so much that you know, accept that person as being looking like your husband, but you don’t feel that that’s your husband. So it is almost exactly the same thing. It is the difference between a perception, which is a perception of a face that looks like my husband, and then the internal feeling which doesn’t feel like my husband. It’s not right. It’s something that’s not right. So yeah, it is definitely something we’d like to work more on.
But if I don’t get to do work and to elucidate or concretely explain what the relationship between those two things is, I think it’s important for this story that we are all of us, each of us living a kind of relationship with our perceptual systems and our cognitive systems. And when déjà vu and jamais vu happen, they’re a little reminder of the fact that it doesn’t always run that smoothly. We are sometimes mistaken. And the reason why déjà vu is so interesting is because it’s infrequent, it’s rare, but it feels really, really weird. And if you imagine being stuck with sensations like that, which you can’t reason with, that you can’t reject or that you can’t justify, then I think you have a little window into how it is to be living with something like Capgras delusion. And I think that’s a very important point for psychology.
Mills: What are you researching right now? What are the big questions you want to answer?
Moulin: Right now? I’ve got a really nice project which we are looking to get funded, which is looking at déjà vu in children because it seems like nobody’s done much direct asking of children about their experiences of déjà vu. It’s more retrospective questionnaires, and it seems like the scientific literature says you don’t get déjà vu until you’re about 10 years old. And that’s again, a nice bit of data to try and understand what déjà vu is. And we are working on the idea that déjà vu is metacognitive, and as I say, it’s a sign that you are able to kind of reflect upon your memory and maybe not be overly trusting of your memory. So we’d say it was a good thing. So the research that we’ve got ongoing is simply to look at when people get déjà vu. We’ve got some interesting preliminary findings which look like déjà vu runs in families, not because it’s genetic. I don’t think I’m going to get a prize for finding out that déjà vu is genetic. I think that’s relatively unlikely. I think the simple explanation is there are families that talk about their experiences and have a label to give to those experiences. And there are families that don’t so much talk about those things, but certainly it runs in families. The more the parents have it, the more the children have it. That’s pretty nice.
And what we would ultimately like to do is do kind of standard tests of metacognitive abilities and thinking skills and see if according to our prediction, people who had déjà vu or people who had déjà vu earlier as children, they would be more metacognitively aware of other kinds of cognitive systems and how their memory works and things like that. We’re kind of really pushing this angle that déjà vu is fact checking—that it’s something good and it’s something useful.
So one project would be to look at that, and then you can imagine it would just be helpful to start talking to children about not just déjà vu and jamais vu also, but the tip of the tongue experience. These are all kind of metacognitive experiences, which are relationships with your own memory and your own cognitive systems. And I think if teachers and educators are talking about those kinds of things, it’s going to help children in general with their learning and education and things like that.
And then I think the second big project that we’ve got going on that we’re just going to start is I don’t believe that these things are just quirks. I don’t think they’re just random events which are meaningless. I think they are infrequent and they speak to the kind of complexity and sensitivity of the human cognitive system. And I think now we have smartphone technology and things like that. We could be much better at collecting examples and frequency of these experiences. And I think that those might be clinically useful. And my experience of working with déjà vu is that people don’t much do research on it, partly because nobody much asks people about their experiences of those things. And I think we could be asking much more about people’s subjective experiences in daily life with a hope to better understanding psychological distress, but also just a rich range of human experience. So with neurologists, I’m hoping to have a very broad spectrum of all these kinds of subjective experiences and see how frequently occur and what they mean to people.
Mills: This is all really fascinating. I want to thank you for joining me. It’s been really interesting talking to you.
Moulin: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for having me. It’s been a pleasure for me too.
Mills: You can find previous episodes of Speaking of Psychology on our website at www.speakingofpsychology.org or on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like what you’ve heard, please subscribe and leave us a review. If you have comments or ideas for future podcasts, you can email us at speakingofpsychology@apa.org
Speaking of Psychology is produced by Lea Winerman, or sound editor is Chris Condayan. Thank you for listening. For the American Psychological Association, I’m Kim Mills.
Christopher Moulin, PhD, is a professor of cognitive neuropsychology at Grenoble Alpes University in France. He is a specialist in human memory, especially the processes involved in coordinating and accessing memory function in humans, and especially in memory dysfunction. He is known for his work on déjà vu and jamais vu.
