Massive visual long-term memory is largely dependent on meaning

Abstract

Previous research demonstrated a massive capacity of visual long-term memory (VLTM) for meaningful images. However, the capacity and limits of a "pure" VLTM that is independent of conceptual information still need to be determined. In three experiments, participants memorized hundreds of images depicting real-world objects, along with visually similar images that were stripped of their semantic meaning. VLTM was evaluated using a four-alternativeforced-choice test including old and new images and their counterpart mirror transformations.The results revealed superior memory for meaningful than for meaningless stimuli and importantly, there was no hint of a massive VLTM for the meaningless items. Furthermore, when examining memory recognition of visual properties per-se (i.e., original/mirror state), memory was overall poor, and practically negligible for the meaningless items. Taken together, our findings suggest that meaning is critical for massive VLTM and for the ability to store visual properties.Think about all the faces, scenes, and objects that you remember and can vividly visualize. This task seems impossible given the ample amount of information our Visual Long-Term Memory (VLTM) holds. Indeed, there is strong empirical evidence that VLTM has a massive capacity, even for stimuli that are briefly presented in an artificial experimental setting. For instance, studies testing memory of up to 10,000 pictures revealed a remarkable performance, suggesting that there is practically no upper bound to VLTM capacity (Shepard, 1967;Standing, 1970Standing, , 1973. This is consistent with the wide-held view that one of the hallmark characteristics of LTM is its unbounded capacity, particularly compared to the restricted capacity of visual short-term memory (e.g., Brady et al., 2011).More recent studies further showed that not only does VLTM have a massive capacity, but this type of information is stored with high fidelity (

The influence of semantics on long‐term visual memory capacity in children and adults

“…This also agrees with results highlighted in Shoval et al. (2022) where they established that meaning is important for remembering massive amounts of visual information in adults and in Goujon et al. (2022) where they found that semantic information does enhance the encoding and maintaining of images in long‐term memory when assessed immediately (but not when assessed after weeks).…”

“…This is in agreement with the results outlined in Boucher et al (2016) where children's memory performance was better for concrete than for abstract pictures, marked by larger P600 repetition effects elicited by concrete compared to abstract designs and a more pronounced and localized recruitment of the left frontal region for concrete pictures. This also agrees with results highlighted in Shoval et al (2022) where they established that meaning is important for remembering massive amounts of visual information in adults and in Goujon et al (2022) where they found that semantic information does enhance the encoding and maintaining of images in long-term memory when assessed immediately (but not when assessed after weeks). Building on these findings, our comparative data on children and adults' performance additionally shows that the 'concrete-superiority effect' or the relative advantage conferred by meaningfulness is higher for children.…”

“…How meaning influences memory has been examined in domains such as word recall (Bower et al., 1969; Calkins, 1898; Collins & Quillian, 1969; Dooling & Lachman, 1971; Ernest & Paivio, 1971; Paivio, 1971; Sasson & Fraisse, 1972; Tulving, 1972), where it was found that meaningfulness appears to facilitate memory (Pezdek, 1977; Slamecka, 1985). This issue has also been studied in the visual domain for both short‐term and long‐term memory (Asp et al., 2021; Bellhouse‐King & Standing, 2007; Brady & Störmer, 2022; Goldstein & Chance, 1971; Konkle et al., 2010; Kouststaal et al., 2003; Madigan, 2014; Shoval et al., 2022; Standing, 1973). Several interesting results have emerged.…”

“…Shoval et al. (2022), in their recent study, demonstrated that meaning not only assists visual long‐term memory but is critical for remembering large amounts of visual information. They suggest that semantic/conceptual information acts as a ‘gluing’ process that is necessary for binding together independent visual features.…”

No Evidence of a Visual Testing Effect for Novel, Meaningless Objects

“…In other words, the testing effect appeared to selectively enhance the speed of retrieving conceptual information. Indeed, there is evidence that not just the testing effect but visual memory in general may be dependent on semantic content: although visual long-term memory can store thousands of everyday objects with a high degree of detail (Brady et al, 2008), visual long-term memory is quite poor for meaningless visual items encoded under similar conditions, i.e., one brief presentation per image (Shoval et al, 2022). On the other hand, other prior results argue against a semantic content-mediated theory.…”