The guidance of attention by retrospective and prospective memory during visual search.

Memory for where, but not what, is used during visual search.

“…Although it appears that memory for location is the main component of memory in visual search, it is still unclear whether this memory is for items that have already been examined (retrospective memory), for items the observer plans to examine in the near future (prospective memory), or both. Research has demonstrated that both retrospective and prospective memory play a role in visual search (Gilchrist & Harvey, in press; McCarley et al, 2003; Peterson et al, 2004; Thornton & Horowitz, 2004). The disruption of memory for both new and old items that moved to new locations in Experiments 2 and 3 suggests that location information is important for both prospective and retrospective memory.…”

“…For example, in addition to remembering which items have already been examined (retrospective memory), participants may remember a plan for which items they will examine in the near future (prospective memory). Research demonstrates that the tendency to examine new items more frequently than old items is partially due to prospective memory (planning ahead) and partially due to retrospective memory (remembering where one has been; Boot, McCarley, Kramer, & Peterson, 2004; Peterson et al, 2004; Thornton & Horowitz, 2004). In the experiments presented here, we found not only that retrospective memory is disrupted by changing the locations of search items but also that prospective memory is disrupted.…”

“…Results suggested that retrospective memory in visual search might be limited to the four or five previously examined items. Although there have also been arguments for an almost limitless role of memory (16 -20 items; Peterson et al, 2001;Takeda, 2004), these high estimates are likely due to paradigms that do not factor out the role of prospective memory (scan path strategies; Peterson, Beck, & Vomela, 2004). Furthermore, some of the original proponents of memoryless search suggest that a limited capacity (three-five objects) cannot be ruled out (Horowitz & Wolfe, 2001, 2003Wolfe, 2003).…”

“…In addition to retrospective memory for old search items, remembering a plan for examining future (new) items may also be involved in visual search. Research has demonstrated that both retrospective and prospective memory are involved in visual search (McCarley et al, 2003; Peterson et al, 2004; Thornton & Horowitz, 2004). The role of prospective memory has been demonstrated in tasks that remove the ability to use retrospective memory.…”

Marking rejected distractors: A gaze-contingent technique for measuring memory during search

“…However, our data do not require the representation of many discrete rejected distractors or location tags, constructs traditionally associated with distractor memory. We believe that distractor memory might, instead, take the form of a more abstracted search plan (see Peterson, Beck, & Vomela, 2004, for a similar proposal). If observers are able to represent the path that they follow during their search, it follows that they should demonstrate evidence for distractor memory well beyond the memory capacity limits suggested by recent studies (McCarley et al, 2003;Peterson et al, 2001).…”