바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.4

Citation Share

Interactions between Visual Working Memory Representations in Grouping Contexts

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.4, pp.355-368
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.4.006



& (2020). Interactions between Visual Working Memory Representations in Grouping Contexts. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 32(4), 355-368, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.4.006

Abstract

Studies have shown that stimulus representations interact in visual working memory (VWM). Using Gestalt grouping cues, we investigated how VWM representations of individual stimuli interact in grouping contexts. Two closely located colored circles (proximity) were connected or separated by a line (connectedness). These pairs were shown in memory and test arrays. Participants performed color change detection tasks in which they were asked not only to detect changes but also to locate the changed items. Color change was made to one (Experiment 1) or two (Experiment 2) item(s) in each test array. In Experiment 1, individual items grouped by both proximity and connectedness showed lower detection performance than those only by proximity. In Experiment 2, the colors of two stimuli changed in the same group (intragroup) or across different groups (intergroup). As in Experiment 1, the same grouping effect was observed in the intragroup-change condition. In addition, the change detections were better in the intragroup- than intergroup-change condition. This effect was reversed when data obtained from correctly detected (not necessarily located) trials were analyzed. Collectively, change detections of individual items differed depending on grouping strength, group membership status, and levels of data analysis, suggesting that items represented in VWM affect one another in a hierarchical structure.

keywords
stimulus representation, visual working memory, proximity, connectedness, hierarchical structure, 자극표상, 시각작업기억, 근접성, 연결성, 위계구조

Reference

1.

Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological Science, 15, 106-111.

2.

Anderson, S. F., Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2017). Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power:A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28, 1547–1562.

3.

Bae, G.-Y., & Luck, S. J. (2017). Interactions between visual working memory representations. Attention, Perception, &Psychophysics, 79, 2376-2395.

4.

Balaban, H., & Luria, R. (2016a). Object representations in visual working memory change according to the task context. Cortex, 81, 1-13.

5.

Balaban, H., & Luria, R. (2016b). Integration of distinct objects in visual working memory depends on strong objecthood even for different-dimension conjunctions. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 2093-2104.

6.

Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2008). Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science, 321, 851-854.

7.

Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological Science, 22, 384-392.

8.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87-114.

9.

Fabiani, M., Stadler, M. A., & Wessels, P. M. (2000). True but not false memories produce a sensory signature in human lateralized brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 941-949.

10.

Fabiani, M., Ho, J., Stinard, A., & Gratton, G. (2003). Multiple visual memory phenomena in a memory search task. Psychophysiology, 40, 472-485.

11.

Farah, M. J., Tanaka, J. W., & Drain, H. M. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628-634.

12.

Farah, M. J. (1996). Is face recognition ‘special’? Evidence from neuropsychology. Behavioral Brain Research, 76(1-2), 181-189.

13.

Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is “special” about face perception? Psychological Review, 105, 482-498.

14.

Fougnie, D., Cormiea, S. M., & Alvarez, G. A. (2013). Object-based benefits without object based representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 621-626.

15.

Gauthier, I., & Logothetis, N. K. (2000). Is face recognition not so unique after all? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17(1-3), 125-142.

16.

Gao, Z., Gao, Q., Tang, N., Shui, R., & Shen, M. (2015). Organization principles in visual working memory:Evidence from sequential stimulus display. Cognition, 146, 277-288.

17.

Gratton, G. (1998). The contralateral organization of visual memory: A theoretical concept and a research tool. Psychophysiology, 35, 638-647.

18.

Jiang, Y., Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2000). Organization of visual short term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 683-702.

19.

Jolicoeur, P., Brisson, B., & Robitaille, N. (2008). Dissociation of the N2pc and sustained posterior contralateral negativity in a choice response task. Brain Research, 1215, 160-172.

20.

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

21.

Luria, R., & Vogel, E. K. (2011). Shape and color conjunction stimuli are represented as bound objects in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1632-1639.

22.

Luria, R., & Vogel, E. K. (2014). Come together, right now:Dynamic overwriting of an object’s history through common fate. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 1819-1828.

23.

Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.

24.

Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369-378.

25.

Peterson, D. J., & Berryhill, M. E. (2013). The Gestalt principle of similarity benefits visual working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 1282-1289.

26.

Peterson, D. J., Gözenman, F., Arciniega, H., & Berryhill, M. E. (2015). Contralateral delay activity tracks the influence of Gestalt grouping principles on active visual working memory representations. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 77, 2270-2283.

27.

Poljac, E., de-Wit, L., & Wagemans, J. (2012). Perceptual wholes can reduce the conscious accessibility of their parts. Cognition, 123, 308-312.

28.

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 Review, 18, 324-330.

29.

Shin, E., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2006). Multiple levels of stimulus representation in visual working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 844-858.

30.

Shin, E., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2013). Memory representations in visual working memory:Representational quality and memory access. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 25, 425-444.

31.

Shin, H., & Ma, W. J. (2017). Visual short-term memory for oriented, colored objects. Journal of Vision, 17:12, 1-19.

32.

Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 225-245.

33.

Vogel, E. K., & Machizawa, M. G. (2004). Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature, 428, 748-751.

34.

Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 138, 1172-1217.

35.

Woodman, G. F., Vecera, S. P., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Perceptual organization influences visual working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 80-87.

36.

Xu, Y. (2008). Representing connected and disconnected shapes in human inferior intraparietal sulcus. NeuroImage, 40, 1849-1856.

37.

Xu, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2007). Visual grouping in human parietal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 18766-18771.

38.

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

39.

Xu, Y. (2002). Encoding color and shape from different parts of an object in visual short-term memory. Perception &Psychophysics, 64, 1260-1280.

40.

Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453, 233-235.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy