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

Psychological Science

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 106-111

  Alvarez, G A ^a,b   Cavanagh, P ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642355176     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502006.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
2. Baddeley, A.D. (1978). The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and Lockhart's framework for memory research. Psychological Review, 85, 139-152.
3. Brener, R. (1940). An experimental investigation of memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 467-482.
4. Cavanagh, J.P. (1972). Relation between the immediate memory span and the memory search rate. Psychological Review, 79, 525-530.
5. Comtois, R. (2003). Vision Shell PPC [Software libraries]. Cambridge, MA: Author.
6. Eckslein, M.P. (1998). The lower visual search efficiency for conjunctions is due to noise and not serial altentional processing. Psychological Science, 2, 111-118.
7. Jacobs, J. (1887). Experiments on "prehension." Mind, 12, 75-79.
8. Luck, S.J., & Vogel, E.K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279-281.
9. Palmer, J. (1990). Attentional limits on the perception and memory of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 332-350.
10. Palmer, J., & McLean, J. (1995, August). Imperfect, unlimited capacity, parallel search yields large set size effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Irvine, CA.
11. Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369-378.
12. Phillips, W.A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 283-290.
13. Puckett, J.M., & Kausler, D.H. (1984). Individual differences and models of memory span: A role for memory search rate? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory; and Cognition, 10, 72-82.
14. Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423.
15. Snodgrass, J.G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
16. Townsend, J.T. (1971). A note on the identification of parallel and serial processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 161-163.
17. Townsend, J.T. (1990). Serial and parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1, 46-54.
18. Treisman, A.M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 72, 97-136.
19. Vogel, E.K., Woodman. G.F., & Luck, S.J. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 92-114.
20. Wheeler, M.E., & Treisman, A.M. (2002). Binding in short-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 48-64.
21. Wolfe, J.M., Cave, K.R., & Franzel, S.L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419-433.