Sensory storage reconsidered

Abstract

Models of sensory storage appear to incorporate three features: capacity in excess of short-term memory, rapid decay of information, and an unprocessed trace as the storage medium. The evidence for each is examined in the visual and the auditory modes. The excess capacity hypothesis is rejected on the grounds that negative results are obtained when output interference and cue anticipation mechanisms are excluded. Rapid decay is seen as a minor effect which may not result from sensory storage. Limited trace storage appears to exist in the form of extremely brief sensory persistence, but applies only to normally attended stimuli; the pivotal concept of subsequent random access to a trace appears unsupported.

Temporal integration in visual memory.

“…Neither iconic theory nor the perceptual moment hypothesis has remained entirely unchallenged (e.g., Efron, 1970;Holding, 1975). The results of the experiments reported below are equally unsupportive of a "storage" theory of iconic memory and of any version of the perceptual moment hypothesis.…”

Vibrotactile masking: Temporal integration, persistence, and strengths of representations

“…Some investigators have questioned the viability of a concept such as sensory store, and, although my intention is not to enter the debate here (see Coltheart, 1975Coltheart, , 1980Holding, 1975), some clarifying comments may be useful.…”

The varieties of visual persistence: Comments on Yeomans and Irwin

“…Coltheart, Lea, & Thompson, 1974;Holding, 1970Holding, , 1971Holding, , 1973. As a result, it is generally agreed that the partial-report task, in addition to any persistence effects it may reveal, also involves a number of other processes, including output interference, cue interpretation time, cue anticipation (guessing) effects, processing strategies (e.g., left-to-right, top-to-bottom preferences), masking effects, and more (see, for example, Holding, 1975;Long, 1980;Mewhort, Campbell, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1981). Given the variety of processes involved, it is not surprising that subjects exhibit wide individual differences under identical stimulus conditions.…”