The Capacity of Visual Short-Term Memory is Set Both by Visual Information Load and by Number of Objects

Previous research has suggested that visual short-term memory has a fixed capacity of about four objects. However, we found that capacity varied substantially across the five stimulus classes we examined, ranging from 1.6 for shaded cubes to 4.4 for colors (estimated using a change detection task). We also estimated the information load per item in each class, using visual search rate. The changes we measured in memory capacity across classes were almost exactly mirrored by changes in the opposite direction in visual search rate (r2 = .992 between search rate and the reciprocal of memory capacity). The greater the information load of each item in a stimulus class (as indicated by a slower search rate), the fewer items from that class one can hold in memory. Extrapolating this linear relationship reveals that there is also an upper bound on capacity of approximately four or five objects. Thus, both the visual information load and number of objects impose capacity limits on visual short-term memory.

[1]  R. Brener,et al.  An experimental investigation of memory span , 1940 .

[2]  James T. Townsend,et al.  A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes , 1971 .

[3]  J. P. Cavanagh Relation between the immediate memory span and the memory search rate. , 1972 .

[4]  W. A. Phillips On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory , 1974 .

[5]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  THE TROUBLE WITH LEVELS: A REEXAMINATION OF CRAIK AND LOCKHART'S FRAMEWORK FOR MEMORY RESEARCH , 1978 .

[6]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[7]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  J. M. Puckett,et al.  Individual differences and models of memory span: A role for memory search rate? , 1984 .

[9]  H Pashler,et al.  Familiarity and visual change detection , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  J. Palmer Attentional limits on the perception and memory of visual information. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  J. Townsend Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and Should) be Distinguished , 1990 .

[13]  John Palmer,et al.  Imperfect, Unlimited-Capacity, Parallel Search Yields Large Set-Size Effects , 1995 .

[14]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[15]  M. Eckstein The Lower Visual Search Efficiency for Conjunctions Is Due to Noise and not Serial Attentional Processing , 1998 .

[16]  G. Woodman,et al.  Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  A. Treisman,et al.  Binding in short-term visual memory. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[19]  Joseph Jacobs,et al.  Experiments on Prehension , 1887 .