Abstract
Reports in a visual working memory(WM) task exhibit biases related to the categorical structure of the stimulus space (e.g., cardinal bias) as well as biases related to previously seen stumuli (e.g., serial bias). While these biases are common and can occur simultaneously, the extent to which they interact in WM remains unknown. In the present study, I used orientation delayed estimation tasks known to produce both cardinal and serial biases and found that the serial bias systematically varied based on the relative positions of the cardinal axis and the preceding stimulus in orientation space. When they were positioned in a way that generated cardinal and serial biases in the same direction (i.e., on the same side of the target orientation), reports for the target orientation exhibited a regular repulsive serial bias. However, when their positions resulted in the biases in the opposite directions (i.e., on the opposite side of the target orientation), no serial bias occurred. This absence of serial bias was replicated in a follow-up experiment where the locations of the stimulus orientation and the response probe were completely randomized, suggesting that the interaction occurs independently from location-based response preparation processes. Together, these results demonstrate that the prior stimulus and the cardinal axis impose interactive impact on the processing of new stimulus, producing differential patterns of serial bias depending on the specific stimulus being processed. These findings place significant implications on computational models addressing the nature of the stimulus history effect and its underlying mechanisms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data is available at https://osf.io/s6p7x/.
Code availability
Data were analyzed using R (Version 4.1.2).
Notes
The present study focuses on the trial history bias that goes away from the previous-trial stimulus. However, research on serial dependency found that the reports of the current-trial stimulus were biased toward the previous-trial stimulus (Fischer & Whitney, 2014). The exact nature of the opposing directions of the stimulus history effect is not yet confirmed and studies suggest that the repulsive bias may be driven by mechanisms that differ from those underlying attractive serial dependence. Therefore, the present study uses the term repulsive serial bias to differentiate the repulsion bias from serial dependence. See the General Discussion for more discussions on this issue.
References
Appelle, S. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: The “oblique effect” in man and animals. Psychological Bulletin, 78(4), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033117
Bae, G.-Y. (2021a). Breaking the cardinal rule: The impact of interitem interaction and attentional priority on the cardinal biases in orientation working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02374-2
Bae, G.-Y. (2021b). Neural evidence for categorical biases in location and orientation representations in a working memory task. NeuroImage, 240, Article 118366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118366
Bae, G.-Y., & Luck, S. J. (2017). Interactions between visual working memory representations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(8), 2376–2395. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1404-8
Bae, G.-Y., & Luck, S. J. (2019). Reactivation of previous experiences in a working memory task. Psychological Science, 30(4), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619830398
Bae, G.-Y., & Luck, S. J. (2020). Serial dependence in vision: Merely encoding the previous-trial target is not enough. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(2), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01678-7
Bae, G.-Y., Olkkonen, M., Allred, S. R., & Flombaum, J. I. (2015). Why some colors appear more memorable than others: A model combining categories and particulars in color working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000076
Bansal, S., Bae, G.-Y., Robinson, B. M., Dutterer, J., Hahn, B., Luck, S. J., & Gold, J. M. (2023). Qualitatively different delay-dependent working memory distortions in people with schizophrenia and healthy control subjects. Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.04.535597
Barbosa, J., Stein, H., Martinez, R. L., Galan-Gadea, A., Li, S., Dalmau, J., ..., Compte, A. (2020). Interplay between persistent activity and activity-silent dynamics in the prefrontal cortex underlies serial biases in working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 23(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0644-4
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
Blakemore, C., Carpenter, R. H., & Georgeson, M. A. (1970). Lateral inhibition between orientation detectors in the human visual system. Nature, 228(5266), 37–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/228037a0
Bliss, D. P., Sun, J. J., & D’Esposito, M. (2017). Serial dependence is absent at the time of perception but increases in visual working memory. Scientific Reports, 7(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15199-7
Camperi, M., & Wang, X. J. (1998). A model of visuospatial working memory in prefrontal cortex: Recurrent network and cellular bistability. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 5(4), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008837311948
Cicchini, G. M., Mikellidou, K., & Burr, D. C. (2018). The functional role of serial dependence. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1890), Article 20181722. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1722
Fischer, J., & Whitney, D. (2014). Serial dependence in visual perception. Nature Neuroscience, 17(5), 738–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3689
Fritsche, M., Spaak, E., & de Lange, F. P. (2020). A Bayesian and efficient observer model explains concurrent attractive and repulsive history biases in visual perception. eLife, 9, Article e55389. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55389
Gibson, J. J., & Radner, M. (1937). Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. I. Quantitative studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(5), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059826
Girshick, A. R., Landy, M. S., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2011). Cardinal rules: Visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nature Neuroscience, 14(7), 926–932. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2831
Golomb, J. D. (2015). Divided spatial attention and feature-mixing errors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(8), 2562–2569. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0951-0
Johnson, J. S., Spencer, J. P., Luck, S. J., & Schöner, G. (2009). A dynamic neural field model of visual working memory and change detection. Psychological Science, 20(5), 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02329.x
Kang, M.-S., & Choi, J. (2015). Retrieval-induced inhibition in short-term memory. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615577358
Kiyonaga, A., & Egner, T. (2016). Center-surround inhibition in working memory. Current Biology, 26(1), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.013
Manassi, M., Murai, Y., & Whitney, D. (2023). Serial dependence in visual perception: A meta-analysis and review. Journal of Vision, 23(8), 18. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.8.18
Moon, J., & Kwon, O.-S. (2022). Attractive and repulsive effects of sensory history concurrently shape visual perception. BMC Biology, 20(1), Article 247. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-022-01444-7
Pascucci, D., Mancuso, G., Santandrea, E., Libera, C. D., Plomp, G., & Chelazzi, L. (2019). Laws of concatenated perception: Vision goes for novelty, decisions for perseverance. PLOS Biology, 17(3), Article e3000144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000144
Rhilinger, J. P., Xu, C., & Rose, N. S. (2023). Are irrelevant items actively deleted from visual working memory?: No evidence from repulsion and attraction effects in dual-retrocue tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85(5), 1499–1516. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02724-2
Sadil, P., Cowell, R. A., & Huber, D. E. (2023). The push–pull of serial dependence effects: Attraction to the prior response and repulsion from the prior stimulus. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Avance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02320-3
Sheehan, T. C., & Serences, J. T. (2022). Attractive serial dependence overcomes repulsive neuronal adaptation. PLOS Biology, 20(9), Article e3001711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001711
Stein, H., Barbosa, J., Rosa-Justicia, M., Prades, L., Morató, A., Galan-Gadea, A., Ariño, H., Martinez-Hernandez, E., Castro-Fornieles, J., Dalmau, J., & Compte, A. (2020). Reduced serial dependence suggests deficits in synaptic potentiation in anti-NMDAR encephalitis and schizophrenia. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18033-3
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
Sternberg, S. (1998). Discovering mental processing stages: The method of additive factors. In D. N. Osherson, S. Sternberg, & D. Scarborough (Eds.), Methods, models, and conceptual issues: An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 4, pp. 703–863). MIT Press.
Wei, X.-X., & Stocker, A. A. (2015). A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain “anti-Bayesian” percepts. Nature Neuroscience, 18(10), 1509–1517. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4105
Xu, X., Collins, C. E., Khaytin, I., Kaas, J. H., & Casagrande, V. A. (2006). Unequal representation of cardinal vs. oblique orientations in the middle temporal visual area. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(46), 17490–17495. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608502103
Open practices statement
The data and materials for all experiments are available at https://osf.io/s6p7x/.
Funding
N/A
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
N/A.
Consent to participate
Participants were provided with informed consent prior to the participation.
Consent for publication
N/A.
Conflict of interest/Competing interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Significance statements
The orientation representation in perception is influenced by two sources of bias: the cardinal axis and stimulus history. However, there has been a lack of research examining how these two factors collectively impact the processing of new stimuli in a given task. In the present study, I discovered that the two biases interact systematically in a stimulus-specific manner, resulting in a nonuniform stimulus history effect. This finding has important implications for theories that seek to understand the nature of the stimulus history effect and the mechanisms underlying it.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Bae, GY. Cardinal bias interacts with the stimulus history bias in orientation working memory. Atten Percept Psychophys 86, 828–837 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02867-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02867-w