title: Remembering complex objects in visual working memory: do capacity limits restrict objects or features?
abstract: Visual working memory stores stimuli from our environment as representations that can be accessed by high-level control processes. This study addresses a longstanding debate in the literature about whether storage limits in visual working memory include a limit to the complexity of discrete items. We examined the issue with a number of change-detection experiments that used complex stimuli that possessed multiple features per stimulus item. We manipulated the number of relevant features of the stimulus objects in order to vary feature load. In all of our experiments, we found that increased feature load led to a reduction in change-detection accuracy. However, we found that feature load alone could not account for the results but that a consideration of the number of relevant objects was also required. This study supports capacity limits for both feature and object storage in visual working memory.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences.
authors.forename: Kyle O
authors.initials: KO
authors.lastname: Hardman
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences.
authors.forename: Nelson
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Cowan
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003118:Color Perception; D005260:Female; D005556:Form Perception; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D014796:Visual Perception; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2011 Nov;22(11):1434-41
references.pmid: 21987693
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2004 Feb;15(2):106-11
references.pmid: 14738517
references.citation: J Vis. 2010 Oct 22;10(12):27
references.pmid: 21047759
references.citation: Nature. 1997 Nov 20;390(6657):279-81
references.pmid: 9384378
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85
references.pmid: 11515286
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Apr;11(2):296-301
references.pmid: 15260196
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 1988 May;40(2):201-37
references.pmid: 3406448
references.citation: Nature. 2008 May 8;453(7192):233-5
references.pmid: 18385672
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2013 Oct;24(10):2038-47
references.pmid: 23938276
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Dec;32(6):1436-51
references.pmid: 17154783
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003 Oct;4(10):829-39
references.pmid: 14523382
references.citation: PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(2):e1002927
references.pmid: 23468613
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2013 Nov;41(8):1212-27
references.pmid: 23716004
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):135-8
references.pmid: 20081174
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Aug;142(3):621-6
references.pmid: 23067063
references.citation: J Vis. 2011 Oct 06;11(12):
references.pmid: 21980189
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 22;105(16):5975-9
references.pmid: 18420818
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 May;39(3):731-47
references.pmid: 22905929
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Mar;131(1):48-64
references.pmid: 11900102
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Feb;27(1):92-114
references.pmid: 11248943
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):528-30
references.pmid: 26168108
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):622-8
references.pmid: 17614871
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2011 May;49(6):1622-31
references.pmid: 21172364
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37
references.pmid: 19293088
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2004 Apr;66(3):446-53
references.pmid: 15283069