The short-term dynamics within a network of connections is creative

Although visual long-term memory (VLTM) and visual short-term memory (VSTM) can be distinguished from each other (and from visual sensory storage [SS]), they are embodied within the same modality-specific brain regions, but in very different ways: VLTM as patterns of connectivity and VSTM as patterns of activity. Perception and VSTM do not “activate” VLTM. They use VLTM to create novel patterns of activity relevant to novel circumstances.

New Estimate for Storage Time in Sensory Memory

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.

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

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

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.