Overwriting and rebinding: Why feature-switch detection tasks underestimate the binding capacity of visual working memory

In these two experiments, we explored the ability to store bound representations of colour and location information in visual working memory using three different tasks. In the location-cue task, we probed how well colour information could be recalled when observers are given a location cue. In the feature-cue task, we probed how well location information could be recalled when observers are given a colour cue. Finally, in the feature-switch detection task, we tested how well observers could detect a recombination of features (e.g., switching the locations of the red and green items). We hypothesized that these tasks might reveal differences in binding capacity limits between switching and nonswitching tests of visual working memory. We also hoped the tasks could provide an explanation for those differences in terms of the component processes of working memory—do failures occur in the encoding, maintenance, or retrieval stages of the task? Experiment 1 showed that performance in the two cued-recall tasks was equally high, and was significantly better than performance in the feature-switch detection task. Thus, the feature-switch detection task underestimates the number of colour–location bindings that can be remembered, but is a useful task for examining the fragile nature of feature binding in working memory. Experiment 2 explored why feature-switch detection underestimates the binding capacity of visual working memory by examining whether the feature switch errors occur at the level of encoding, maintaining, or retrieving binding information from visual working memory. The results suggest that feature switch errors reflect failures to maintain bound objects in working memory, perhaps due to the automatic rewriting and rebinding of information in the face of new perceptual input.

[1]  A. Treisman,et al.  Location and binding in visual working memory , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[2]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Postattentive vision. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Daniel A. Gajewski,et al.  Feature bindings endure without attention: Evidence from an explicit recall task , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  J E Smith,et al.  Simple algorithms for M-alternative forced-choice calculations , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  Daniel T. Levin,et al.  Evidence for Preserved Representations in Change Blindness , 2002, Consciousness and Cognition.

[6]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  A. Treisman The binding problem , 1996, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[8]  R. M. Boynton,et al.  Independence of memory for categorically different colors and shapes , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[10]  G. Woodman,et al.  The time course of consolidation in visual working memory. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Daniel J. Simons,et al.  Current Approaches to Change Blindness , 2000 .

[12]  Jun Saiki,et al.  Multiple-object permanence tracking: limitation in maintenance and transformation of perceptual objects. , 2002, Progress in brain research.

[13]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  Nothing compares 2 views: Change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed information , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  N. Cowan The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  Jun Saiki,et al.  Feature binding in visual working memory evaluated by type identification paradigm , 2007, Cognition.

[17]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

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

[19]  Jun Saiki,et al.  Feature binding in object-file representations of multiple moving items. , 2003, Journal of vision.

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

[21]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding? , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes , 1968, Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

[23]  E. Marg A VISION OF THE BRAIN , 1994 .

[24]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[25]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature binding, attention and object perception. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[26]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  The Capacity of Visual Short-Term Memory is Set Both by Visual Information Load and by Number of Objects , 2004, Psychological science.

[27]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

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

[29]  Jun Saiki,et al.  Spatiotemporal characteristics of dynamic feature binding in visual working memory , 2003, Vision Research.