바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.2

Citation Share

The Effect of Inter-Items Similarity on Visual Working Memory Performance

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2015, v.27 no.2, pp.291-312
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.2.011


& (2015). The Effect of Inter-Items Similarity on Visual Working Memory Performance. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(2), 291-312, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.2.011

Abstract

The present study examined the effect of inter-items similarity on visual working memory (VWM) performance. A change detection task was used for testing memory performance, and the memory items consisted of two (in Experiment 1) or three (in Experiment 2) sequentially-displayed pairs of items, varying the level of similarity between the items in each pair. After the memory item, memory test was given according to either a whole or partial-report procedure. The two items in each first and second pair were manipulated to have colors from two different color categories or those from the same categories but made distinctive. The former manipulation was for lower inter-item similarity whereas the latter was for higher inter-item similarity. The results showed that change detection was accurate if the inter-item similarity of memory items was lower rather than higher, especially in the partial-probe condition. These results suggest that VWM performance can be improved if the similarity among the items in visual working memory is lower.

keywords
Inter-items similarity, Visual working memory (VWM), Change detection, 기억항목들 간 유사성, 시각작업기억, 변화탐지

Reference

1.

현주석 (2012). 기억자극의 과제 무관련 세부특징 정보가 과제 관련 세부특징에 대한 시각단기재인에 미치는 영향. 인지과학, 23(2), 225-248.

2.

Beck, J. (1966). Effect of orientation and of shape similarity on perceptual grouping. Perception & Psychophysics, 1(9), 300-302.

3.

Beck, J. (1972). Similarity grouping and peripheral discriminability under uncertainty. The American journal of psychology, 85(1), 1-19.

4.

Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork, Cognition, 52(2), 125-157.

5.

Hollingworth A. (2006). Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition. 32(1), 58-69.

6.

Hollingworth, A., & Rasmussen, I. P. (2010). Binding objects to locations: the relationship between object files and visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance., 36(3). 543- 564.

7.

Hunt, R. R. (1995). The subtlety of distinctiveness: What vonRestorff really did. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 105-112.

8.

Johnson, J. S., Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S. J. (2008). The role of attention in the maintenance of feature bindings in visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34(1), 41-55.

9.

Kahana, M. J., & Sekuler, R. (2002). Recognizing spatial patterns: a noisy exemplar approach. Vision Research, 42, 2177-2192.

10.

Kahana, M. J., Zhou, F., Geller, A., & Sekuler, R. (2007). Lure similarity affects visual episodic recognition: Detailed tests of a noisy exemplar model. Memory & Cognition, 35(6), 1222-1232.

11.

Lin, P. H., & luck, S. J. (2009). The influence of similarity on visual working memory representations. Visual Cognition, 17(3), 356- 372.

12.

Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279-281.

13.

Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(1), 104-114.

14.

Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39-57.

15.

Nosofsky, R. M. (1989). Further tests of an exemplar-similarity approach to relating identification and categorization. Perception & Psychophysics, 45(4), 279-290.

16.

Nosofsky, R. M., & Kantner, J. (2006). Exemplar similarity, study list homogeneity, and shor-term perceptual recognition. Memory & Cognition, 34(1), 112-124.

17.

Olson, R. K., & Attneave, F. (1970). What variables produce similarity grouping? The American Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 1-21.

18.

Patterson, M. D., Bly, B. M., Porcelli, A. J., & Rypm, B. (2007). Visual working memory for global, object, and part-based information. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 738-751.

19.

Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Morey, C. C., & Cowan, N. (2011). How to measure working memory capacity in the change detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Revew, 18, 324-330.

20.

Smith, E. E., & Sloman, S. A. (1994). Similarity- versus rule-based categorization. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 377-386.

21.

Viswanathan, S., Perl, D. R., Visscher, K. M., Kahana, M,., & Sekuler, R. (2010). Homogeneity computation: How interitem similarity in visual short term memory alters recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 59-65.

22.

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(1), 92-114.

23.

Woodman, G. F., & Vecera, S. P. (2011). The cost of accessing an object's feature stored in visual working memory. Visual Cognition, 19(1), 1-12.

24.

Xu, Y. (2006). Understanding the object benefit in visual short-term memory: The roles of feature proximity and connectedness. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(5), 815-828.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy