Data compression in memory is a cognitive process allowing participants to cope with complexity to reduce information load. However, previous studies have not yet considered the hypothesis that this process could also lead to over-simplifying information due to haphazard amplification of the compression process itself. For instance, we could expect that the over-regularized features of a visual scene could produce false recognition of patterns, not because of storage capacity limits but because of an errant compression process. To prompt memory compression in our participants, we used multielement visual displays for which the underlying information varied in compressibility. The compressibility of our material could vary depending on the number of common features between the multi-dimensional objects in the displays. We measured both accuracy and response times by probing memory representations with probes that we hypothesized could modify the participants’ representations. We confirm that more compressible information facilitates performance, but a more novel finding is that compression can produce both typical memory errors and lengthened response times. Our findings provide clearer evidence of the forms of compression that participants carry out.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The data for all experiments are available in the OSF repository at https://osf.io/ehjrw/?view_only=0373989a406643d0ad0a8548e4829ff3
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. In Selected papers of hirotugu akaike (p. 371-386). Springer.
Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological science, 15(2), 106-111.
Awh, E., Barton, B., & Vogel, E. K. (2007). Visual working memory represents a fixed number of items regardless of complexity. Psychological science, 18(7), 622-628.
Bays, P. M., Catalao, R. F., & Husain, M. (2009). The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. Journal of vision, 9(10), 7-7.
Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2008). Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science, 321(5890), 851-854.
Bays, P. M., Wu, E. Y., & Husain, M. (2011). Storage and binding of object features in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1622-1631.
Bradmetz, J., & Mathy, F. (2008). Response times seen as decompression times in Boolean concept use. Psychological Research, 72(2), 211-234.
Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory : Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological science, 22(3), 384-392.
Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2015). No evidence for a fixed object limit in working memory : Spatial ensemble representations inflate estimates of working memory capacity for complex objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 921.
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., & Alvarez, G. A. (2009). Compression in visual working memory : Using statistical regularities to form more efficient memory representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 487-502. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016797
Brady, T. F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2013). A probabilistic model of visual working memory : Incorporating higher order regularities into working memory capacity estimates. Psychological Review, 120(1), 85.
Brown, V. A. (2020). An approachable introduction to linear mixed effects modeling with implementation in R.
Chekaf, M., Cowan, N., & Mathy, F. (2016). Chunk formation in immediate memory and how it relates to data compression. Cognition, 155, 96-107.
Chekaf, M., Gauvrit, N., Guida, A., & Mathy, F. (2018). Compression in working memory and its relationship with fluid intelligence. Cognitive Science, 42, 904-922.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck : A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory : A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-114.
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(3), 731.
Cowan, N., Rouder, J. N., Blume, C. L., & Saults, J. S. (2012). Models of verbal working memory capacity : What does it take to make them work? Psychological review, 119(3), 480.
De Lillo, C. (2004). Imposing structure on a Corsi-type task : Evidence for hierarchical organisation based on spatial proximity in serial-spatial memory. Brain and Cognition, 55(3), 415-426.
Dry, M., Preiss, K., & Wagemans, J. (2012). Clustering, randomness, and regularity : Spatial distributions and human performance on the traveling salesperson problem and minimum spanning tree problem. The Journal of Problem Solving, 4(1), 2.
Feldman, J. (1999). The role of objects in perceptual grouping. Acta Psychologica, 102(2-3), 137-163.
Feldman, J. (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature, 407(6804), 630-633.
Feldman, J. (2003). A catalog of Boolean concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47(1), 75-89.
Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., Hernández-Fernández, A., Lusseau, D., Agoramoorthy, G., Hsu, M. J., & Semple, S. (2013). Compression as a universal principle of animal behavior. Cognitive Science, 37(8), 1565-1578.
Fific, M., Little, D. R., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2010). Logical-rule models of classification response times : A synthesis of mental-architecture, random-walk, and decision-bound approaches. Psychological Review, 117(2), 309.
Fougnie, D., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Object features fail independently in visual working memory : Evidence for a probabilistic feature-store model. Journal of vision, 11(12), 3-3.
Gao, Z., Gao, Q., Tang, N., Shui, R., & Shen, M. (2016). Organization principles in visual working memory : Evidence from sequential stimulus display. Cognition, 146, 277-288.
Gauvrit, N., Singmann, H., Soler-Toscano, F., & Zenil, H. (2016). Algorithmic complexity for psychology : A user-friendly implementation of the coding theorem method. Behavior research methods, 48(1), 314-329.
Haladjian, H. H., & Mathy, F. (2015). A snapshot is all it takes to encode object locations into spatial memory. Vision research, 107, 133-145.
Hardman, K. O., & Cowan, N. (2015). Remembering complex objects in visual working memory : Do capacity limits restrict objects or features? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 325.
Hutter, M. (2004). Universal artificial intelligence : Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability. Springer Science & Business Media.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., & Olson, I. R. (2004). Perceptual grouping in change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(3), 446-453.
Jiang, Y., Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2000). Organization of visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 683.
Kemp, C. (2012). Exploring the conceptual universe. Psychological Review, 119(4), 685.
Kibbe, M. M., & Kowler, E. (2011). Visual search for category sets : Tradeoffs between exploration and memory. Journal of Vision, 11(3), 14-14.
Kirby, S., Tamariz, M., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2015). Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition, 141, 87-102.
Korjoukov, I., Jeurissen, D., Kloosterman, N. A., Verhoeven, J. E., Scholte, H. S., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2012). The time course of perceptual grouping in natural scenes. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1482-1489.
Lafond, D., Lacouture, Y., & Mineau, G. (2007). Complexity minimization in rule-based category learning : Revising the catalog of Boolean concepts and evidence for non-minimal rules. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51(2), 57-74.
Li, M., & Vitányi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (Vol. 3). Springer.
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279.
Ma, W. J., Husain, M., & Bays, P. M. (2014). Changing concepts of working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 17(3), 347.
Mathy, F., & Bradmetz, J. (2004). A theory of the graceful complexification of concepts and their learnability. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive-Current Psychology of Cognition, 22, 39-80.
Mathy, F., & Feldman, J. (2012). What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. Cognition, 122(3), 346-362.
Mewhort, D. J. K., & Johns, E. E. (2000). The extralist-feature effect : Evidence against item matching in short-term recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(2), 262.
Morey, C. C., Cong, Y., Zheng, Y., Price, M., & Morey, R. D. (2015). The color-sharing bonus : Roles of perceptual organization and attentive processes in visual working memory. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3(1), 18.
Nassar, M. R., Helmers, J. C., & Frank, M. J. (2018). Chunking as a rational strategy for lossy data compression in visual working memory. Psychological Review, 125(4), 486.
Ngiam, W. X., Brissenden, J. A., & Awh, E. (2019). “Memory compression” effects in visual working memory are contingent on explicit long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(8), 1373.
Norris, D. G., & Kalm, K. (2018). Chunking and redintegration in verbal short-term memory.
Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101(1), 53.
Oberauer, K., & Eichenberger, S. (2013). Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1212-1227.
Oberauer, K., & Lin, H.-Y. (2017). An interference model of visual working memory. Psychological Review, 124(1), 21.
Orbán, G., Fiser, J., Aslin, R. N., & Lengyel, M. (2008). Bayesian learning of visual chunks by human observers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(7), 2745-2750.
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1-2), 8-13.
Peterson, D. J., & Berryhill, M. E. (2013). The Gestalt principle of similarity benefits visual working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1282-1289.
Quinlan, P. T., & Cohen, D. J. (2012). Grouping and binding in visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1432.
Ramzaoui, H., & Mathy, F. (2021). A compressibility account of the color-sharing bonus in working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1-16.
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59.
Reder, L. M., Liu, X. L., Keinath, A., & Popov, V. (2016). Building knowledge requires bricks, not sand : The critical role of familiar constituents in learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 271-277.
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(16), 5975-5979.
Saiki, J. (2019). Robust color-shape binding representations for multiple objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Sargent, J., Dopkins, S., Philbeck, J., & Chichka, D. (2010). Chunking in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 576.
Schurgin, M. W., Wixted, J. T., & Brady, T. F. (2020). Psychophysical scaling reveals a unified theory of visual memory strength. Nature human behaviour, 4(11), 1156-1172.
Sims, C. R. (2015). The cost of misremembering : Inferring the loss function in visual working memory. Journal of vision, 15(3), 2-2.
Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2019). An introduction to mixed models for experimental psychology. New methods in cognitive psychology, 28, 4-31.
Soler-Toscano, F., Zenil, H., Delahaye, J.-P., & Gauvrit, N. (2014). Calculating Kolmogorov complexity from the output frequency distributions of small Turing machines. PloS one, 9(5), e96223.
Thalmann, M., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2019). How does chunking help working memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 37.
Vigo, R. (2006). A note on the complexity of Boolean concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50(5), 501-510.
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Van Der Maas, H. L., & Grasman, R. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 3-22.
Wheeler, M. E., & Treisman, A. M. (2002). Binding in short-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 48.
Woodman, G. F., Vecera, S. P., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Perceptual organization influences visual working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 80-87.
Xu, Y. (2002). Limitations of object-based feature encoding in visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), 458.
Xu, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2006). Dissociable neural mechanisms supporting visual short-term memory for objects. Nature, 440(7080), 91-95.
Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453(7192), 233.
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-CE28-0013-01) awarded to Fabien Mathy.
The experiment was approved by the local ethics committee (CERNI) of the Université Côte d'Azur.
Consent to participate
The experiment was conducted with the informed consent of the participants.
Consent for publication
Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Example of display and probe for each condition of Experiment 1 and Experiment 2
About this article
Cite this article
Lazartigues, L., Lavigne, F., Aguilar, C. et al. Benefits and pitfalls of data compression in visual working memory. Atten Percept Psychophys (2021). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02333-x
- Working memory
- Compression of information
- Response times