Abstract
In hybrid visual search, observers must maintain multiple target templates and subsequently search for any one of those targets. If the number of potential target templates exceeds visual working memory (VWM) capacity, then the target templates are assumed to be maintained in activated long-term memory (aLTM). Observers must search the array for potential targets (visual search), as well as search through memory (target memory search). Increasing the target memory set size reduces accuracy, increases search response times (RT), and increases dwell time on distractors. However, the extent of observers’ memory for distractors during hybrid search is largely unknown. In the current study, the impact of hybrid search on target memory search (measured by dwell time on distractors, false alarms, and misses) and distractor memory (measured by distractor revisits and recognition memory of recently viewed distractors) was measured. Specifically, we aimed to better understand how changes in behavior during hybrid search impacts distractor memory. Increased target memory set size led to an increase in search RTs, distractor dwell times, false alarms, and target identification misses. Increasing target memory set size increased revisits to distractors, suggesting impaired distractor location memory, but had no effect on a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) distractor recognition memory test presented during the search trial. The results from the current study suggest a lack of interference between memory stores maintaining target template representations (aLTM) and distractor information (VWM). Loading aLTM with more target templates does not impact VWM for distracting information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Notes
Given that using the first 25 participants for the power analysis is not ideal, for Experiment 1b we conducted a power analysis based on the effects in Experiment 1a before collecting data for Experiment 1b with a new sample. In addition, we confirmed that the results found with the full sample in Experiment 1b have the same pattern of significance as the initial set of 25 participants.
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Beck, M. R., Peterson, M. S., Boot, W. R., Vomela, M., & Kramer, A. F. (2006a). Explicit memory for rejected distractors during visual search. Visual Cognition, 14(2), 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280600574487
Beck, M. R., Peterson, M. S., & Vomela, M. (2006b). Memory for where, but not what, is used during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.235
Boettcher, S. E. P., Drew, T., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). Hybrid search in context: How to search for vegetables in the produce section and cereal in the cereal aisle. Visual Cognition, 21(6), 678–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.844959
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38), 14325–14329. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803390105
Brady, T. F., Robinson, M. M., Williams, J. R., & Wixted, J. T. (2023). Measuring memory is harder than you think: How to avoid problematic measurement practices in memory research. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(2), 421–449. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02179-w
Carlisle, N. B., Arita, J. T., Pardo, D., & Woodman, G. F. (2011). Attentional templates in visual working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(25), 9315–9322. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1097-11.2011
Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28–71. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0681
Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 163.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
Cowan, N. (2008). Chapter 20 What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? In W. S. Sossin, J.-C. Lacaille, V. F. Castellucci, & S. Belleville (Vol. eds.), Progress in brain research (Vol. 169, pp. 323–338). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9
Cowan, N. (2019). Short-term memory based on activated long-term memory: A review in response to Norris (2017). Psychological Bulletin, 145(8), 822–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000199
Cunningham, C. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (2014). The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1585–1599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036313
Dodd, M. D., Castel, A. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Inhibition of return with rapid serial shifts of attention: Implications for memory and visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(7), 1126–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194839
Drew, T., & Wolfe, J. M. (2014). Hybrid search in the temporal domain: Evidence for rapid, serial logarithmic search through memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(2), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0606-y
Drew, T., Boettcher, S. E. P., & Wolfe, J. M. (2016). Searching while loaded: Visual working memory does not interfere with hybrid search efficiency but hybrid search uses working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0874-8
Drew, T., Boettcher, S. E. P., & Wolfe, J. M. (2017). One visual search, many memory searches: An eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search. Journal of Vision, 17(11), 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.11.5
Endo, N., & Takeda, Y. (2004). Selective learning of spatial configuration and object identity in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194880
Farrell, S. (2012). Temporal clustering and sequencing in short-term memory and episodic memory. Psychological Review, 119, 223–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027371
Gilchrist, I. D., North, A., & Hood, B. (2001). Is visual search really like foraging? Perception, 30(12), 1459–1464. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3249
Guevara Pinto, J. D., Papesh, M. H., & Hout, M. C. (2020). The detail is in the difficulty: Challenging search facilitates rich incidental object encoding. Memory & Cognition, 48(7), 1214–1233. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01051-3
Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394(6693), 575–577. https://doi.org/10.1038/29068
Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Search for multiple targets: Remember the targets, forget the search. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(2), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194468
Hout, M. C., & Goldinger, S. D. (2012). Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving efficiency: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023894
Konkle, T., Brady, T. F., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2010). Scene memory is more detailed than you think: The role of categories in visual long-term memory. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1551–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385359
Lavelle, M., Alonso, D., Luria, R., & Drew, T. (2021). Visual working memory load plays limited, to no role in encoding distractor objects during visual search. Visual Cognition, 29(5), 288–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2021.1914256
Leite, F. P., & Ratcliff, R. (2010). Modeling reaction time and accuracy of multiple-alternative decisions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(1), 246–273. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.1.246
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013
Madrid, J., & Hout, M. C. (2019). Examining the effects of passive and active strategies on behavior during hybrid visual memory search: Evidence from eye tracking. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0191-2
Menneer, T., Stroud, M. J., Cave, K. R., Li, X., Godwin, H. J., Liversedge, S. P., & Donnelly, N. (2012). Search for two categories of target produces fewer fixations to target-color items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(4), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031032
Oberauer, K. (2002). Access to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 411–421.
Oberauer, K. (2009). Design for a working memory. In B. H. Ross (Vol. ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 45–100). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51002-X
Oberauer, K. (2013). The focus of attention in working memory—From metaphors to mechanisms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00673
Olivers, C. N. L., Peters, J., Houtkamp, R., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.004
Peltier, C., & Becker, M. W. (2016). Decision processes in visual search as a function of target prevalence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(9), 1466–1476. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000248
Peterson, M. S., Beck, M. R., & Vomela, M. (2007). Visual search is guided by prospective and retrospective memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194459
Plater, L., Giammarco, M., Fiacconi, C., & Al-Aidroos, N. (2020). No role for activated long term memory in attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 149(2), 209.
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80067-7
Standing, L. (1973). Learning 10000 pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747308400340
Standing, L., Conezio, J., & Haber, R. N. (1970). Perception and memory for pictures: Single-trial learning of 2500 visual stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 19(2), 73–74.
Williams, C. C., Henderson, J. M., & Zacks, f. (2005). Incidental visual memory for targets and distractors in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(5), 816–827. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193535
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(2), 202–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200774
Wolfe, J. M. (2012). Saved by a log: How do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search? Psychological Science, 23(7), 698–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443968
Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(4), 1060–1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
Wolfe, J. M., Boettcher, S. E. P., Josephs, E. L., Cunningham, C. A., & Drew, T. (2015). You look familiar, but I don’t care: Lure rejection in hybrid visual and memory search is not based on familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 41(6), 1576–1587. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000096
Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review, 115(4), 787–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013118
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The Louisiana State University Research Ethics Committee approved this study.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
No conflicts of interests or competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open practices statement
Data or materials for the experiments are available upon request, and none of the experiments was preregistered.
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
Saltzmann, S.M., Eich, B., Moen, K.C. et al. Activated long-term memory and visual working memory during hybrid visual search: Effects on target memory search and distractor memory. Mem Cogn (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01556-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01556-1