scholarly journals Compatible and incompatible representations in visual sensory storage

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Bhardwaj ◽  
J. D. Mollon ◽  
H. E. Smithson
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Storage

New Estimate for Storage Time in Sensory Memory

1984 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse E. Purdy ◽  
Kelly M. Olmstead
Keyword(s):  
Visual Memory ◽  
Interstimulus Interval ◽  
Storage Time ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Sensory Memory ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Short Term Visual Memory ◽  
Visual Storage ◽  
Sensory Storage ◽  
Information Transfers

Sperling in 1960 reported information in sensory storage remained for about one sec. In 1974 Phillips reported that information in sensory storage passed on to short-term visual memory after 100 msec. To distinguish between these alternatives, 55 subjects received 36 trials in which two matrices of letters, familiar shapes, or non-familiar shapes were presented successively in a recognition task. The interstimulus interval varied systematically. Results showed that as the interval increased, performance decreased. Further, memory for letters and familiar shapes was superior. Finally, there were no differences among letters, familiar shapes, and non-familiar shapes at the .25-sec. interval. At the .5-sec. interval, performance for familiar shapes was superior to performance for non-familiar shapes. It was concluded that information transfers to short-term visual storage after .25 sec.

scholarly journals Sensory storage reconsidered

1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis H. Holding
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Storage

Interference with Visualization

1977 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 637-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. A. Phillips ◽  
D. F. M. Christie
Keyword(s):  
Visual Processing ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
Presentation Modality ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Sensory Storage

It is often claimed that visualizing and perceiving interfere with each other because they compete for special purpose visual processing resources. The arguments for this view (e.g. Brooks, 1967, 1968) are criticised. Five experiments are then reported which attempt to determine whether specific processing activities interfere with the visualization of novel abstract patterns. Visualization was greatly interfered with by adding five digits but not by reading them. Presentation modality of the digits did not affect the interference they caused. When the intervening activity involved processing patterns similar to those being visualized, the amount of interference depended upon whether the subject had to form and use representations that outlived the icon. Perception caused interference when it involved formation of a maintainable representation, but not when it required only sensory storage. It is concluded that visualization requires general purpose resources, and that interference between visualization and perception could be due to competition for these resources.

“Sensory Storage of Fragmentary Displays”: Refutation of a Theory of Iconic Memory?

1984 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee S. Cohene
Keyword(s):  
Iconic Memory ◽  
Sensory Storage

Holding and Orenstein (1984) purport to have demonstrated evidence that is contrary to a theory of iconic memory; however, the conclusions of these authors are called into question for methodological reasons.

Sensory Storage of Fragmentary Displays

1983 ◽  
Vol 57 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1283-1294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis H. Holding ◽  
Howard B. Orenstein
Keyword(s):  
Single Letter ◽  
Partial Report ◽  
Delay Times ◽  
Sensory Storage

A partial-report version of the Eriksen-Collins paradigm was devised to test iconic storage. The test lay in presenting arrays of 12 partial letters, one of which was randomly chosen for completion. Additional conditions checked whether the completed letters were legible and to what extent the completion fragments were guessable. Test sequences included dark or light inter-stimulus intervals and 4 different delay times, which had no significant effects. Analysis showed that subjects were no better able to report a synthesis of the first and second fragments than to guess the letters from separate fragments. A second experiment demonstrated some integration of successive single-letter presentations, although subjects apparently do not have iconic access to full arrays of letter fragments.

Selection in Visual Immediate Memory

1968 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Von Wright
Keyword(s):  
Partial Report ◽  
Immediate Memory ◽  
Selective Listening ◽  
Sensory Storage ◽  
Efficiency Of Selection ◽  
Selection Of

The sampling (partial report) technique of Sperling (1960) was used to study the efficiency of selection of letters from visual immediate memory (sensory storage). Selection by location, chromatic colour, achromatic colour, and size was fairly efficient whereas selection by orientation was difficult. Some parallels between selection in visual immediate memory and selective listening are briefly discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document