Object appearance and picture-specific viewpoint are not integrated in long-term memory

Chunking in Visual Working Memory: Are Visual Features of Real-World Objects Stored in Chunks?

Are visual features of real-world objects stored as bound units? Previous research has shown that simple visual features (e.g., colored squares or geometric shapes) can be effectively bound together when forming predictable pairs in memory tasks. Through a "memory compression" process, observers can take advantage of these features to compress them into a chunk. However, a recent study found that visual features in real-world objects are stored independently. In the present study, we explored this issue by using drawings of fruits as memory stimuli, presenting four pictures of fruit in separate test trials in which we required observers to remember eight total features (i.e., four colors and four shapes). In the congruent trials, the color of the fruit matched its natural appearance (e.g., a red apple), while in incongruent trials, the color of the fruit mismatched its natural appearance (e.g., a red banana). We paired the shape of the fruits randomly with a color (without replacement). According to chunking theory, if visual features of real-world objects are stored in a chunk, the highest memory capacity should be accompanied by the longest response time in congruent trials due to an extra decoding process required from the chunk. We did find that participants had the highest memory capacity in the congruent condition, but their response times in the congruent condition were significantly faster than in the incongruent condition. Thus, observers did not undergo a decoding process in the congruent condition, and we concluded that visual features in real-world objects are not stored in a chunk.

False memories when viewing overlapping scenes

Humans can memorize and later recognize many objects and complex scenes. In this study, we prepared large photographs and presented participants with only partial views to test the fidelity of their memories. The unpresented parts of the photographs were used as a source of distractors with similar semantic and perceptual information. Additionally, we presented overlapping views to determine whether the second presentation provided a memory advantage for later recognition tests. Experiment 1 (N = 28) showed that while people were good at recognizing presented content and identifying new foils, they showed a remarkable level of uncertainty about foils selected from the unseen parts of presented photographs (false alarm, 59%). The recognition accuracy was higher for the parts that were shown twice, irrespective of whether the same identical photograph was viewed twice or whether two photographs with overlapping content were observed. In Experiment 2 (N = 28), the memorability of the large image was estimated by a pre-trained deep neural network. Neither the recognition accuracy for an image part nor the tendency for false alarms correlated with the memorability. Finally, in Experiment 3 (N = 21), we repeated the experiment while measuring eye movements. Fixations were biased toward the center of the original large photograph in the first presentation, and this bias was repeated during the second presentation in both identical and overlapping views. Altogether, our experiments show that people recognize parts of remembered photographs, but they find it difficult to reject foils from unseen parts, suggesting that their memory representation is not sufficiently detailed to rule them out as distractors.