Does visual short‐term memory store bound features?

Delvenne, Jean‐François; Bruyer, Raymond

doi:10.1080/13506280344000167

Cited by 113 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moving beyond two features might have a more severe impact that is easier to detect experimentally even with large changes. This interpretation is consistent with the extant literature: The null effect of one versus two features per object has been replicated several times in experiments using large changes (Delvenne & Bruyer, 2004;Olson & Jiang, 2002;Riggs, Simpson, & Potts, 2011), although other experiments using equally large changes showed worse performance with two features than with one feature per object (Cowan, Blume, & Saults, 2012;Johnson, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2008; C. C. Morey & Bieler, 2012;Wheeler & Treisman, 2002;Wilson, Adamo, Barense, & Ferber, 2012). The effect of one versus two features appears to be fickle, suggesting that the effect is small on average, and probably modulated by as yet unidentified experimental details.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This fact rules out one major potential cause of failures to replicate: lack of power. Third, with regard to the comparison of single-feature and two-feature objects, the literature is already mixed, with some reports finding no difference (Delvenne & Bruyer, 2004;Olson & Jiang, 2002;Riggs et al, 2011;Vogel et al, 2001) and others finding worse performance when two (or more) features need to be remembered per object (Cowan et al, 2012;Johnson et al, 2008;C. C. Morey & Bieler, 2012;Stevanovski & Jolicoeur, 2011;Wheeler & Treisman, 2002;Wilson et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several researchers have meanwhile observed substantial differences between memory for single-colored and for bicolored objects (Delvenne & Bruyer, 2004;Olson & Jiang, 2002;Wheeler & Treisman, 2002;Xu, 2002). We regard the matter of conjunctions of features from the same dimension as settled and focus on the question of whether conjunctions of features from different dimensions can be remembered as well as single features.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, the finding that mixed sets of shapes and textures are easier to remember than pure sets of shapes or of textures (Delvenne & Bruyer, 2004; see Figure 5) would have to be explained by assuming independent, parallel restoration processes for shapes and for textures.…”

Section: Effects Of Domain and Of Set Heterogeneity (A3 -A5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

What limits working memory capacity?

Oberauer

Farrell

Jarrold

et al. 2016

Psychological Bulletin

278

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the evidence for the three principal theoretical contenders that vie to explain why and how working memory capacity is limited. We examine the possibility that capacity limitations arise from temporal decay; we examine whether they might reflect a limitation in cognitive resources; and we ask whether capacity might be limited because of mutual interference of representations in working memory. We evaluate each hypothesis against a common set of findings reflecting the capacity limit: The set-size effect and its modulation by domain-specificity and heterogeneity of the memory set; the effects of unfilled retention intervals and of distractor processing in the retention interval; and the pattern of correlates of working-memory tests. We conclude that---at least for verbal memoranda---a decay explanation is untenable. A resource-based view remains tenable but has difficulty accommodating several findings. The interference approach has its own set of difficulties but accounts best for the set of findings, and therefore appears to present the most promising approach for future development.Keywords: working memory, decay, resources, interference, individual differences WM Capacity 3 What Limits Working Memory Capacity?Working memory (WM) is the system that holds mental representations available for processing. Its limited capacity is a limiting factor for the complexity of our thoughts (Halford, Cowan, & Andrews, 2007;Oberauer, 2009). Measures of WM capacity have been identified as major determinants of cognitive development in childhood (Bayliss, Jarrold, Gunn, & Baddeley, 2003) and in old age (Park et al., 2002;Salthouse, 1994), as well as of individual differences in intellectual abilities (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003;Jarrold & Towse, 2006). Understanding why WM capacity is limited is therefore an essential step toward understanding why human cognitive abilities are limited, why individuals differ in these abilities, and how abilities develop over the lifespan.In this article we use the term WM capacity in a descriptive sense, referring to the fact that people can hold only a limited amount of mental content available for processing. The capacity limit is usually operationalized as a limit on how much new information people can remember over short periods of time (in the order of seconds), but there are reasons to believe (discussed below) that the capacity limit also applies to people's ability to make information in the current environment simultaneously available for processing.Hypotheses about what limits WM capacity can be organized into three groups: (1) Some theories assume that representations in WM decay over time, unless decay is prevented by some form of restoration process such as rehearsal. According to this view, WM has limited capacity because only a limited amount of information can be rehearsed before it fades away into an irrecoverable state (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975;Schweickert & Boruff, 1986). (2) Alternatively, WM capacity has been characterized as a limited resourc...

show abstract

“…hierarchical organised structural object descriptions; Marr and Nishihara 1978). Information stored in VSTM may use a subset of perceptual dimensions, some of which may be of weighted in terms of fidelity, novelty or content (Delvenne and Bruyer 2004;Delvenne and Dent 2008;Irwin 1992;Irwin and Andrews 1996;Lee and Chun 2001;Luck and Vogel 1997;Parker et al 1998;Vogel et al 2001;Wheeler and Treisman 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The L/M-Opponent Channel Provides a Distinct and Time-Dependent Contribution towards Visual Recognition

Vincent

Gobet²,

Parker

et al. 2010

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual pathway has been successfully modelled as containing separate channels consisting of one achromatically opponent mechanism and two chromatically opponent mechanisms. However, little is known about how time affects the processing of chromatic information. Parametrically defined objects were generated. Reduced colour objects were interleaved with full-colour objects and measures of recognition performance (d-prime [d']) were compared using the continuous serial recognition paradigm. Measures were taken at multiple delay intervals (1 s, 4 s, 7 s, and 10 s). When chromatic variations were removed, recognition performance was impaired, but at the 1 s and 10 s intervals only. When luminance variations were removed, no impairment resulted. When only L/Mopponent modulations were removed, a deficit in performance was produced only at the 1 s and 10 s intervals, similar to the removal of chromatic variation. When only Sopponent modulations were removed, no impairment was observed. The results suggest that the L/M-opponent pathway provides a specialized contribution to visual recognition, but that its effect is modulated by time. A three-stage process model is proposed to explain the data. We wanted to examine whether constraints placed on a single dimension (colour) modulated VSTM performance. Understanding VSTM and its role in recognition ability is important as it has the potential to aid normal and deficient behaviour. In this study, the contribution of colour to human visual recognition performance was examined to ascertain the effect of time on removing variation from object stimuli along one or two dimensions of the 3D colour space. The visual pathway has been successfully modelled as containing separate channels consisting of one achromatically opponent mechanism and two chromatically opponent mechanisms (Buchsbaum and Gottschalk 1983). Empirical evidence shows that contrast sensitivity functions for stimuli containing achromatic, L/M-opponent and S-opponent modulations take differing forms, reflecting differences in the properties of the mechanisms that convey each class of signal (Mullen 1985). Adapting stimuli that isolate one of the opponent mechanisms do not alter visual threshold measurements taken along the orthogonal opponent direction (Bradley et al 1988;Krauskopf and Gegenfurtner 1992;Krauskopf et al 1982).Differences in performance have been observed in shape discrimination tasks, measuring the radial modulation threshold for discrimination between circular and non-circular stimuli matched in multiples of stimulus detection threshold. The Sopponent system was found to perform worst, followed by the L/M-opponent system and the achromatic system (Mullen and Beaudot 2002).Imaging studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown how extremely sensitive the visual system is to chromatic modulations of low In this study, we examined how time affects the relative contribution of the L/M-opponent and S-opponent modulations to visual recognition. We were interested in the d...

show abstract

Does visual short‐term memory store bound features?

Cited by 113 publications

References 30 publications

Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object

Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object

What limits working memory capacity?

The L/M-Opponent Channel Provides a Distinct and Time-Dependent Contribution towards Visual Recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About