Ensemble coding remains accurate under object and spatial visual working memory load

Epstein, M. A.; Emmanouil, Tatiana Aloi

doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1353-2

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We further extended the previous evidence by showing that centroid extraction is also not costly when there is variance in the size of the elements and when attention is split between the centroid and the less precise item locations. Our findings are consistent with recent research suggesting that working memory load has no bearing on ensemble coding (Epstein & Emmanouil, 2017; but see also Bauer, 2017). Taking these results together with those from Experiment 2, we can conclude that the centroid is a simple summary that can be represented upon very brief views and also along with another spatial summary.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Statistical summary representations of bound features

Boduroǧlu

Yildirim

2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual system can efficiently summarize various lower-level and higher-level features of ensembles. However, no research to date has directly investigated how different features interact with each other within a single summary and whether people can efficiently report an integrated summary of two feature dimensions. In the first two experiments, we specifically investigated whether individuals can integrate spatial and size information to report a bound spatial summary, the center of mass (CoM), as efficiently as the centroid, which is devoid of size information. Both experiments revealed that viewers were equally accurate in extracting the centroid and the CoM, with the size distribution inadvertently affecting the centroid estimates. In the final experiment, we investigated whether encouraging observers to attend to individual item size would cause the centroid estimates to be biased toward the CoM. When item size was task-irrelevant, as in the centroid task, observers were able to selectively focus on spatial location, eliminating any impact from the size distribution. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that viewers are capable of extracting integrated summaries, possibly through a mechanism that allows them to represent the spatial distribution of sizes. We discuss possible mechanisms that may support the extraction of integrated summaries, and highlight the need to consider multilevel mechanisms extending beyond simple feature-and object-based mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Statistical summary representations of bound features

Boduroǧlu

Yildirim

2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Chong & Treisman, 2003;Corbett, Wurnitsch, Schwartz, & Whitney, 2012;Epstein & Emmanouil, 2017). Many of these studies assume that multiple subsets can be (almost) perfectly segmented based on the color or spatial cues prior to ensemble extraction.…”

Section: Experiments 2 Categorization In the Domain Of Size And Ensembmentioning

confidence: 99%

An explicit investigation of the roles that feature distributions play in rapid visual categorization

Tiurina

Utochkin

2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, Utochkin and Tiurina (2014) found that heterogeneity does not affect accuracy, suggesting that all items are computed over. Ensemble perception also works even when subjects are under working memory load (Epstein & Emmanouil 2017). These results suggest that large numbers of items are explicitly represented in early stages of visual perception prior to storage in VWM.…”

Section: The Challenge From Flexible Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Iconic Memory Iconic?

Quilty‐Dunn

2019

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term memory in vision is typically thought to divide into at least two memory stores: a short, fragile, high-capacity store known as iconic memory, and a longer, durable, capacity-limited store known as visual working memory (VWM). This paper argues that iconic memory stores icons, i.e., image-like perceptual representations. The iconicity of iconic memory has significant consequences for understanding consciousness, nonconceptual content, and the perception-cognition border. Steven Gross and Jonathan Flombaum have recently challenged the division between iconic memory and VWM by arguing against the idea of capacity limits in favor of a flexible resource-based model of short-term memory. I argue that, while VWM capacity is probably governed by flexible resources rather than a sharp limit, the two memory stores should still be distinguished by their representational formats. Iconic memory stores icons, while VWM stores discursive (i.e., language-like) representations. I conclude by arguing that this format-based distinction between memory stores entails that prominent views about consciousness and the perception-cognition border will likely have to be revised. "There are two kinds of visual memory: one when you skillfully recreate an image in the laboratory of your mind, with your eyes open (and then I see Annabel in such general terms as: 'honey-colored skin,' 'thin arms,' 'brown bobbed hair,' 'long lashes,' 'big bright mouth'); and the other when you instantly evoke, with shut eyes, on the dark innerside of your eyelids, the objective, absolutely optical replica of a beloved face, a little ghost in natural colors[.]"-Vladimir Nabokov

show abstract

Ensemble coding remains accurate under object and spatial visual working memory load

Cited by 19 publications

References 62 publications

Statistical summary representations of bound features

Statistical summary representations of bound features

An explicit investigation of the roles that feature distributions play in rapid visual categorization

Is Iconic Memory Iconic?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About