A relational account of visual short-term memory (VSTM)

Observers Efficiently Extract the Minimal and Maximal Element in Perceptual Magnitude Sets: Evidence for a Bipartite Format

The mind represents abstract magnitude information, including time, space, and number, but in what format is this information stored? We show support for the bipartite format of perceptual magnitudes, in which the measured value on a dimension is scaled to the dynamic range of the input, leading to a privileged status for values at the lowest and highest end of the range. In six experiments with college undergraduates, we show that observers are faster and more accurate to find the endpoints (i.e., the minimum and maximum) than any of the inner values, even as the number of items increases beyond visual short-term memory limits. Our results show that length, size, and number are represented in a dynamic format that allows for comparison-free sorting, with endpoints represented with an immediately accessible status, consistent with the bipartite model of perceptual magnitudes. We discuss the implications for theories of visual search and ensemble perception.

Search mode, not the attentional window, determines the magnitude of attentional capture

A salient color distractor is known to capture attention during search for a less salient shape target, but the mechanisms underlying attentional capture are debated. Theeuwes (2004, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 65-70) argued that attentional capture depends on the size of the attentional window. If the attentional window is large, search is efficient and attentional capture should be stronger because the distractor is more likely to be inside the window. Consistently, we found higher search efficiency and more attentional capture in singleton than in feature search. However, differences in attentional capture only occurred when singleton and feature search were performed by different groups of participants, but not when singleton and feature search occurred unpredictably in the same group of participants. This result contradicts the attentional window account because search efficiency was always higher in singleton than in feature search. Rather, the results support search mode theory, which claims that participants looked for the most salient stimulus in singleton search ("singleton detection mode"), which resulted in more capture by the salient color distractor. When search types varied unpredictably, it was impossible to apply a consistent search strategy, which eliminated the differences between singleton and feature search. Further, we manipulated search efficiency by target-nontarget similarity. With dissimilar nontargets, the target was salient and search efficiency was high. Therefore, the attentional window account predicts more capture. However, we found the opposite result in singleton search and no difference in feature search. Taken together, these observations are inconsistent with the attentional window account but support search mode theory.

Attentional prioritisation and facilitation for similar stimuli in visual working memory

Visual working memory (VWM) allows for the brief retention of approximately three to four items. Interestingly, when these items are similar to each other in a feature domain, memory recall performance is elevated compared to when they are dissimilar. This similarity benefit is currently not accounted for by models of VWM. Previous research has suggested that this similarity benefit may arise from selective attentional prioritisation in the maintenance phase. However, the similarity effect has not been contrasted under circumstances where dissimilar item types can adequately compete for memory resources. In Experiment 1, similarity benefits were seen for all-similar over all-dissimilar displays. This was also seen in mixed displays, change detection performance was higher when one of the two similar items changed, compared to when the dissimilar item changed. Surprisingly, the similarity effect was stronger in these mixed displays then when comparing the all-similar and all-dissimilar. Experiment 2 investigated this further by examining how attention was allocated in the memory encoding phase via eye movements. Results revealed that attention prioritised similar over dissimilar items in the mixed displays. Similar items were more likely to receive the first fixation and were fixated more often than dissimilar items. Furthermore, dwell times were elongated for dissimilar items, suggesting that encoding was less efficient. These results suggest that there is an attentional strategy towards prioritising similar items over dissimilar items, and that this strategy's influence can be observed in the memory encoding phase.