Limits to the usability of iconic memory

Human vision briefly retains a trace of a stimulus after it disappears. This trace—iconic memory—is often believed to be a surrogate for the original stimulus, a representational structure that can be used as if the original stimulus were still present. To investigate its nature, a flicker-search paradigm was developed that relied upon a full scan (rather than partial report) of its contents. Results show that for visual search it can indeed act as a surrogate, with little cost for alternating between visible and iconic representations. However, the duration over which it can be used depends on the type of task: some tasks can use iconic memory for at least 240 ms, others for only about 190 ms, while others for no more than about 120 ms. The existence of these different limits suggests that iconic memory may have multiple layers, each corresponding to a particular level of the visual hierarchy. In this view, the inability to use a layer of iconic memory may reflect an inability to maintain feedback connections to the corresponding representation.

[1]  David E. Irwin,et al.  On the Relations among Different Measures of Visible and Informational Persistence , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  John G. Taylor,et al.  A competition for consciousness? , 1996, Neurocomputing.

[3]  J. Duncan,et al.  On the time course of perceptual information that results from a brief visual presentation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  R. Haber.  The impending demise of the icon: A critique of the concept of iconic storage in visual information processing , 1983, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Ronald A. Rensink.  Visual Search for Change: A Probe into the Nature of Attentional Processing , 2000 .

[6]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Readout From Iconic Memory and Selective Spatial Attention Involve Similar Neural Processes , 2007, Psychological science.

[7]  W K Estes,et al.  A DETECTION METHOD AND PROBABILISTIC MODELS FOR ASSESSING INFORMATION PROCESSING FROM BRIEF VISUAL DISPLAYS , 1964 .

[8]  E. Averbach,et al.  Short-term memory in vision , 1961 .

[9]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness , 2003, Vision Research.

[10]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[11]  G. Sperling,et al.  Information transfer in iconic memory experiments. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  K. Fujii,et al.  Visualization for the analysis of fluid motion , 2005, J. Vis..

[13]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  Detailed Sensory Memory, Sloppy Working Memory , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[14]  S. Yantis,et al.  Object continuity in apparent motion and attention. , 1994, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[15]  Jamie I. D. Campbell,et al.  Identification, localization, and “iconic memory”: An evaluation of the bar-probe task , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[16]  B. Sakitt,et al.  Iconic memory. , 1976, Psychological review.

[17]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Iconic memory and visible persistence , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Brian Cantwell Smith,et al.  On the origin of objects , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Tal Makovski.  Are multiple visual short-term memory storages necessary to explain the retro-cue effect? , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  D. J. Felleman,et al.  Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. , 1991, Cerebral cortex.

[21]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[23]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  VSearch: Macintosh software for experiments in visual search , 1990 .

[24]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Early completion of occluded objects , 1998, Vision Research.

[25]  V. Lamme.  Why visual attention and awareness are different , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  S. Ullman.  Visual routines , 1984, Cognition.

[27]  Mark Bolton,et al.  Out of sight but not out of harm’s way: Human disturbance reduces reproductive success of a cavity-nesting seabird , 2014, Biological conservation.

[28]  Ronald A. Rensink.  The Dynamic Representation of Scenes , 2000 .

[29]  D. E. Broadbent,et al.  Iconic Memory [and Discussion] , 1983 .

[30]  D. I. Perrett,et al.  Out of sight but not out of mind: the neurophysiology of iconic memory in the superior temporal sulcus , 2005, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[31]  N Weisstein,et al.  Visual Detection of Line Segments: An Object-Superiority Effect , 1974, Science.

[32]  Ralph Norman Haber,et al.  WHERE ARE THE VISIONS IN VISUAL PERCEPTION , 1971 .

[33]  P. A. Adams,et al.  Perception and attention. , 1958, The American journal of psychology.

[34]  Z. Pylyshyn.  Seeing and Visualizing: It's Not What You Think , 2003 .

[35]  Mark W. Becker,et al.  The Role of Iconic Memory in Change-Detection Tasks , 2000, Perception.

[36]  M. Sigman,et al.  The dynamics of sensory buffers: geometric, spatial, and experience-dependent shaping of iconic memory. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[37]  Kunihiko Fukushima,et al.  Character recognition with selective attention , 1991, IJCNN-91-Seattle International Joint Conference on Neural Networks.

[38]  John K. Tsotsos.  A Computational Perspective on Visual Attention , 2011 .

[39]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[40]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .

[41]  C. L. M..  The Psychology of Attention , 1890, Nature.