2010
DOI: 10.1167/5.8.611
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visual working memory for simple and complex visual stimuli

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

12
102
1
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(117 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
12
102
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggestion could further be relevant when considering that we used complex memory items. Previous studies have shown that increased object complexity may constitute a higher information load, which thereby limits the object capacity of short-term memory (Alvarez and Cavanagh, 2004;Eng et al, 2005;Luria et al, 2010). Therefore, complexity-imposed shrinkage in VSTM capacity could be particularly costly when the number of memory items approaches the capacity limit.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This suggestion could further be relevant when considering that we used complex memory items. Previous studies have shown that increased object complexity may constitute a higher information load, which thereby limits the object capacity of short-term memory (Alvarez and Cavanagh, 2004;Eng et al, 2005;Luria et al, 2010). Therefore, complexity-imposed shrinkage in VSTM capacity could be particularly costly when the number of memory items approaches the capacity limit.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The capacity of working memory (WM), our ability to shortly maintain and manipulate relevant information, is constrained (Luck and Vogel, 1997;Miller, 1956) and shows large variation within and between persons (Eng et al, 2005;Vogel and Awh, 2008). One important factor contributing to interindividual differences in the WM performance range is the efficient control of WM contents (Freunberger et al, 2009;Gazzaley et al, , 2008Sauseng et al, 2009;Vogel et al, 2005), in particular, when both relevant and irrelevant information is present in the environment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, they shed more light on the locus of capacity limits within the WM process, specifically on the question of whether performance is determined by encoding and/or retrieval processes. Traditional theories of WM capacity focus on resource demands during the front-end encoding phase, with quantitative limits defined in terms of both the number of items and the amount of information / complexity per item (Alvarez & Cavanagh;Eng et al, 2005). However, our data add to mounting evidence that comparison processes at retrieval are also pivotal in determining WM performance (Awh et al, 2007;Luria et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…However, this upper limit of four items can only be observed when items are perceptually very simple, such as coloured squares (Luck & Vogel, 1997). As stimulus complexity increases, WM performance decreases markedly and results in capacity estimates lower than four items (Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2004;Eng, Chen, & Jiang, 2005). Luria, Sessa, Gotler, Jolicoeur, & Dell'Acqua (2010) showed that the Sustained Posterior Contralateral Negativity (SPCN) amplitude (a large sustained negative waveform at posterior electrode sites elicited from around 300ms after encoding onset) reached asymptote at around 4 simple items, but peaked at only 2 complex items.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%