Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 346–364 | Cite as

Visual short-term memory operates more efficiently on boundary features than on surface features

Article

Abstract

A change detection task was used to estimate the visual short-term memory storage capacity for either the orientation or the size of objects. On each trial, several objects were briefly presented, followed by a blank interval and then by a second display of objects that either was identical to the first display or had a single object that was different (the object changed either orientation or size, in separate experiments). The task was to indicate whether the two displays were the same or different, and the number of objects remembered was estimated from the percent correct on this task. Storage capacity for a feature was nearly twice as large when that feature was defined by the object boundary, rather than by the surface texture of the object. This dramatic difference in storage capacity suggests that a particular feature (e.g., right tilted or small) is not stored in memory with an invariant abstract code. Instead, there appear to be different codes for the boundary and surface features of objects, and memory operates on boundary features more efficiently than it operates on surface features.

References

  1. Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by total information load and by number of objects. Psychological Science, 15, 106–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, M. A., & Grossberg, S. (1984). Neural dynamics of brightness perception: Features, boundaries, diffusion, and resonance. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 428–456.Google Scholar
  4. Comtois, R. (2003). VisionShell PPC [Software libraries]. Cambridge, MA: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dresp, B., & Grossberg, S. (1999). Spatial facilitation by color and luminance edges: Boundary, surface, and attentional factors. Vision Research, 39, 3431–3443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Grier, J. B. (1971). Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 424–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1985a). Neural dynamics of form perception: Boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading. Psychological Review, 92, 173–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1985b). Neural dynamics of perceptual grouping: Textures, boundaries, and emergent segmentations. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hollingworth, A. (2003). Failures of retrieval and comparison constrain change detection in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 388–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., & Olson, I. R. (2004). Perceptual grouping in change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 446–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang, Y., Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2000). Organization of visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 683–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joseph, J. S., Chun, M. M., & Nakayama, K. (1997). Attentional requirements in a “preattentive” feature search task. Nature, 387, 805–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaernbach, C. (1991). Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 227–229.Google Scholar
  16. Landman, R., Spekreijse, H., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2003). Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness. Vision Research, 43, 149–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Magnussen, S., Greenlee, M. W., Asplund, R., & Dyrnes, S. (1990). Perfect short-term memory for periodic patterns. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Magnussen, S., Idas, E., & Myhre, S. H. (1998). Representation of orientation and spatial frequency in perception and memory: A choice reaction-time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 707–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magnussen, S., & Stein, D. (1994). High-fidelity perceptual long-term memory. Psychological Science, 5, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitroff, S. R., Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (2004). Nothing compares 2 views: Change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed information. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1268–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mokhtarian, F., Abbasi, S., & Kittler, J. (1996). Robust and efficient shape indexing through curvature scale space. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 1996 (pp. 53–62). Malvern, U.K.: British Machine Vision Association.Google Scholar
  24. Needham, A. (1999). The role of shape in 4-month-old infants’ object segregation. Infant Behavior & Development, 22, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmer, J. (1990). Attentional limits on the perception and memory of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 332–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips, W. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 283–290.Google Scholar
  27. Shim, W. M., Alvarez, G. A., & Jiang, Y. (2005, May). Capacity limit of visual working memory in parietal cortex reflects capacity limit of spatial selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Vision Sciences Society, Sarasota, FL.Google Scholar
  28. Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tremoulet, P. D., Leslie, A. M., & Hall, G. D. (2000). Infant individuation and identification of objects. Cognitive Development, 15, 499–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 92–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker, P., & Hinkley, L. (2003). Visual memory for shape-color conjunctions utilizes structural descriptions of letter shape. Visual Cognition, 10, 987–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, L., Khan, L., & Breen, C. (2002). Object boundary detection for ontology-based image classification. In J. S. Simeon, C. Djeraba, & O. R. Zaïane (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Multimedia Data Mining in conjunction with Eighth ACM SIGKDD (pp. 51–61). Edmonton, AB: ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Wilken, P., & Ma, W. J. (2004). A detection theory account of change detection. Journal of Vision, 4, 1120–1135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolfe, J. M., Friedman-Hill, S. R., Stewart, M. I., & O’Connell, K. M. (1992). The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright, M., Green, A., & Baker, S. (2000). Limitations for change detection in multiple Gabor targets. Visual Cognition, 7, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, 46-4078Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge
  2. 2.Harvard UniversityCambridge
  3. 3.Université Paris DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations