scholarly journals Short-term visual storage

1967 ◽  
Vol 2 (8) ◽  
pp. 383-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven W. Keele ◽  
William G. Chase
Keyword(s):  
1984 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse E. Purdy ◽  
Kelly M. Olmstead

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.


1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 569-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn E. Meyer ◽  
Robert Lawson ◽  
Walter Cohen

Science ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 198 (4316) ◽  
pp. 524-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Meyer ◽  
W. Maguire

Science ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 190 (4221) ◽  
pp. 1318-1319 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Sakitt
Keyword(s):  

1969 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Norman Haber ◽  
L. G. Standing

Two experiments, involving seven conditions, explored the use of direct measures of visual persistence. In each, the subject was asked to judge if an intermittent stimulus appeared perceptually continuous, or whether it completely faded before the next presentation occurred. The first experiment showed that visual persistence was set at approximately 250 msec. for a recycling presentation of a circle in a tachistoscope; in another task employing a moving opaque slit passing back and forth over a circle, persistence times averaged 50 msec. longer. Reducing luminance by 2 log units increased persistence only slightly, though removing the adapting field increased it by over 100 msec. The second experiment, using the repeating circle, varied the duration of the stimulus, and compared monoptic with dichoptic presentations. Visual persistence was found to be independent of stimulus duration over a range of 4 to 200 msec., where all durations were above recognition threshold for the stimulus. Persistence was unaffected whether the stimulus was repeatedly presented in the same eye or alternated between eyes, strongly suggesting that the storage is central. Finally, a re-analysis of Dodwell and Engel's paper on stereopsis suggests that their effects can be adequately explained by visual persistence of the asynchronous stereo pairs, rather than a more complex fusion model. All of these results strongly support the use of visual persistence as a direct measure of short-term visual storage.


1972 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth K. Warrington ◽  
T. Shallice

Auditory and visual presentation of verbal material were compared in a single patient having an auditory verbal S.T.M. deficit. A Peterson short-term forgetting experiment and an immediate memory span task are reported. Striking differences in performance related to modality of input were obtained. Auditory short-term forgetting was more rapid, whereas with visual presentation short-term decay functions were relatively normal. With visual presentation there was no evidence of acoustic confusion errors but there was some evidence of visual confusion errors. The findings are interpreted in terms of a separate post-perceptual visual S.T.M. system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document