Abstract
Using a subsidiary task technique, Doest and Turvey (1971) concluded that iconic memory was independent of the central processing system. However, they did not control the timing between the short-term memory and the iconic-memory tasks in their first experiment and they used a rather long stimulus duration in their second experiment. These procedural difficulties were rectified here in Experiments I and II. It was found that memory load reduced partial report at all interstimulus intervals and there was no interaction. The results of Experiment I were replicated with auditory presentation in Experiment III, ruling out a masking interpretation. Experiment IV ruled out an interpretation in terms of rehearsal or response competition. It was concluded that iconic memory, like short-term memory, is dependent on the central processing system in the sense that it will suffer in a subsidiary-task situation. The locus of the interference effect appears to be in the encoding stage.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence and J. T. Spence (Eds.),Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, 1968.
Broadbent, D. E. & Heron, A. Effects of a subsidiary task on performance involving immediate memory by younger and older men. British Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 189–198.
Doost, R., & Turvey, M. T. Iconic memory and central processing capacity. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 269–274.
Haber, R. N. How we remember what we see. Scientific American, 1970, 222 (20), 104–112.
Haber, R. N. Visual information storage. InVisual Search; symposium conducted at the spring meeting, 1970, Committee on Vision, Division of Behavioral Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, National Academy of Science. 1973, pp. 129–150.
Haber, R. N., & Hershenson, M.The psychology of visual perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
Murdock, B. B., Jr. Effects of a subsidiary task on short-term memory. British Journal of Psychology, 1965, 56, 413–419.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Sperling. G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 1960, 74 (11 Whole No. 498).
Sperling, G. Successive approximations to a model for short-term memory. Acta Psychologia, 1967, 27, 285–292.
Sperling, G. A model for visual memory task. Human Factors, 1963, 5, 19–31.
Turvey, M. T. The effects of rehearsing analyzed information upon the retrieval of unanalyzed information. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 365–366.
von Wright, J. M. Selection in visual immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 20, 62–68.
WolfoId, G.. & Hollingsworth, G. Evidence that short-term memory is not the limiting factor in the tachistoscopic full-report procedure. Memory & Cognition, 1974, 2, 796–800.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grants APA 146 from the National Research Council of Canada and OMHF 164 from the Ontario Mental Health Foundation. The senior author held a postgraduate fellowship from the National Research Council of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chow, S.L., Murdock, B.B. The effect of a subsidiary task on iconic memory. Memory & Cognition 3, 678–688 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198234
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198234