Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 76, Issue 7, pp 2031–2050 | Cite as

A two-stage search of visual working memory: investigating speed in the change-detection paradigm

  • Amanda L. GilchristEmail author
  • Nelson Cowan


A popular procedure for investigating working memory processes has been the visual change-detection procedure. Models of performance based on that procedure, however, tend to be based on performance accuracy and treat working memory search as a one-step process, in which memory representations are compared to a test probe to determine if a match is present. To gain a clearer understanding of how search of these representations operate in the change-detection task, we examined reaction time in two experiments, with a single-item probe either located centrally or at the location of an array item. Contrary to current models of visual working memory capacity, our data point to a two-stage search process: a fast first step to check for the novelty of the probe and, in the absence of such novelty, a second, slower step to search exhaustively for a match between the test probe and a memory representation. In addition to these results, we found that participants tended not to use location information provided by the probe that theoretically could have abbreviated the search process. We suggest some basic revisions of current models of processing in this type of visual working memory task.


Visual working memory Memory search Change-detection Reaction time 



This research was funded by NIH Grant R01 HD-21338 to Cowan and NIA Training Grant T32 AG000175-21 (Georgia Institute of Technology). We wish to thank Scott Saults for assistance with programming. Address correspondence to Amanda Gilchrist, Department of Psychology, Cottey College, Nevada, MO 64772, USA, or to Nelson Cowan, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. E-mail: or


  1. Anderson, D. E., Vogel, E. K., & Awh, E. (2011). Precision in visual working memory reaches a stable plateau when individual item limits are exceeded. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 1128–1138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, R., Hitch, G. J., Mate, J., & Baddeley, A. (2012). Feature binding and attention in working memory: A resolution of previous contradictory findings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 160–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2008). Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science, 321, 851–854.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Z., & Cowan, N. (in press). Working memory inefficiency: Minimal information is utilized in visual recognition tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. Google Scholar
  6. Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 163–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowan, N., AuBuchon, A. M., Gilchrist, A. L., Ricker, T. J., & Saults, J. S. (2011). Age differences in visual working memory: Not based on encoding limitations. Developmental Science, 14, 1066–1074.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan, N., Blume, C. L., & Saults, J. S. (2013). Attention to attributes and objects in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 731–747.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Donkin, C., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2012). The structure of short-term memory scanning: An investigation using response time distribution models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donkin, C., Nosofsky, R. M., Gold, J. M., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2013). Discrete-slots models of visual working memory response times. Psychological Review, 120, 873–902.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorgoraptis, N., Catalao, R. F. G., Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2011). Dynamic updating of working memory resources for visual objects. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 8502–8511.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyun, J., Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S. J. (2009). The comparison of visual working memory representations with perceptual inputs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1140–1160.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. May, C. P., Hasher, L., & Kane, M. J. (1999). The role of interference in memory span. Memory & Cognition, 27, 767.Google Scholar
  16. Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phillips, W. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Cowan, N., Zwilling, C. E., Morey, C. C., & Pratte, M. S. (2008). An assessment of fixed-capacity models of visual working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 5975–5979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Morey, C. C., & Cowan, N. (2011). How to measure working-memory capacity in the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sternberg, S. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thiele, J. E., Pratte, M. S., & Rouder, J. N. (2011). On perfect working memory performance with large numbers of items. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 958–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Townsend, J. T. (1976). Serial and within-stage independent parallel model equivalence on the minimum completion time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Townsend, J. T. (1990). Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like tweedledum and tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Treisman, A., & Zhang, W. (2006). Location and binding in visual working memory. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1704–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wheeler, M. E., & Treisman, A. M. (2002). Binding in short-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2012). Flexibility in visual working memory: Accurate change detection in the face of irrelevant variations in position. Visual Cognition, 20, 1–28.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453, 233–235.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2009). The number and quality of representations in working memory. Psychological Science, 22, 1434–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology and Department of PsychologyCottey CollegeNevadaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyCottey CollegeNevadaUSA

Personalised recommendations