Rehearsal and storage of visual information.

Shaffer, William O.; Shiffrin, Richard M.

doi:10.1037/h0032076

Cited by 173 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of two recent studies indeed suggest that encoding of a visual stimulus takes place only during the time that the stimulus is physically present (potter & Levy, 1969;Shaffer & Shiffrin, 1972). The experiments to be described in this paper have two purposes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition of information from rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal stimuli

Loftus

1974

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments tested recognition memory for rapidly presented stimuli. In Experiment 116 words were presented at exposure times ranging from 25 to 500 msec followed by a yes-no recognition test. The results showed a strong dependence of memory performance on both exposure time and serial position. In Experiment n 16 random forms were presented at exposure times ranging from 125 to 2000 msec followed by a yes-no recognition test. Results for random forms showed that memory performance was strongly dependent on exposure time but not on serial position. Taken together, the results of Experiments I and II suggest qualitative encoding differences between verbal vs nonverbal stimuli.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquisition of information from rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal stimuli

Loftus

1974

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impressive performance of the subjects in Shepard's study, who recognized 87% out of several hundred pictures in a forced-choice test after 1 week, far exceeds what is normally encountered in verbal memory. Some phenomena that are routinely found in verbal memory, such as the serial position effect, prove to be absent in memory for pictures (Potter & Levy, 1969;Shaffer & Shiffrin, 1972). In addition, on-line processing tasks have shown differences in reaction times (RTs).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The picture superiority effect in a cross-modality recognition task

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Words and pictures were studied, and recognition tests were given in which each studied object was to be recognized in both word and picture format. The main dependent variable was the latency of the recognition decision. The purpose was to investigate the effects of study modality (word or picture), of congruence between study and test modalities, and of priming resulting from repeated testing. Experiments 1 and 2 used the same basic design, but the latter also varied retention interval. Experiment 3 added a manipulation of instructions to name studied objects, and Experiment 4 deviated from the others by presenting both picture and word referring to the same object together for study. The results showed that congruence between study and test modalities consistently facilitated recognition. Furthermore, items studied as pictures were more rapidly recognized than were items studied as words. With repeated testing, the second instance was affected by its predecessor, but the facilitating effect of picture-to-word priming exceeded that of word-to-picture priming. The findings suggest a two-stage recognition process, in which the first is based on perceptual familiarity and the second uses semantic links for a retrieval search. Common-code theories that grant privileged access to the semantic code for pictures or, alternatively, dual-code theories that assume mnemonic superiority for the image code are supported by the findings. Explanations of the picture superiority effect as resulting from dual encoding of pictures are not supported by the data.

show abstract

“…However, recital in the late condition of our study never began sooner than 750 ms after the onset of the array. It has been shown that the consolidation process, measured by varying the time of presentation of a mask to interrupt consolidation, does not continue beyond 200 to 300 ms after the onset of the array (Vogel, Woodman, & Luck, in press; for convergent evidence see Eriksen & Eriksen, 1971;Shaffer & Shiffrin, 1972). 2 Interference during encoding has a powerful effect on long-term recall accuracy (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996) but, presumably, encoding for short-term recall is simpler (Healy & McNamara, 1996) and may not be as vulnerable to interference from a dual task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When Do Visual and Verbal Memories Conflict? The Importance of Working-Memory Load and Retrieval.

Morey

Cowan

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

116

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examinations of interference between verbal and visual materials in working memory have produced mixed results. If there is a central form of storage (e.g., the focus of attention; Cowan, 2001) then cross-domain interference should be obtained. We examined this question with a visual-array comparison task (Luck & Vogel, 1997) combined with various verbal memory load conditions. Interference between tasks occurred if there was explicit retrieval of the verbal load during maintenance of a visual array. The effect was localized in the maintenance period of the visual task, and was not the result of articulation per se. Interference occurred also when especially large silent verbal and visual loads were held concurrently. These results suggest central storage along with codespecific, passive storage.A simple question that has yielded a complex answer is whether memories in different domains can be actively represented in working memory at the same time. Baddeley and Hitch (1974) and Baddeley (1986) reported only mild interference between various types of cognitive tasks and a verbal memory load. The working-memory theory of Baddeley (1986; see also Baddeley & Logie, 1999) includes separate, passively-held storage faculties for verbal and visuospatial forms of information but some conflict is said to be possible if both forms of information are demanding enough to require the involvement of central executive processes at the same time for rehearsal and/or processing. Given that this central executive involvement is not always necessary, it is perhaps not surprising that examinations of the extent of conflict between two tasks in different domains have yielded mixed results (e.g., Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson, & Baddeley, 2002;Duncan, Martens & Ward, 1997;Jolicoeur, 1999;Luck & Vogel, 1997;Morey & Cowan, 2004;Sanders & Schroots, 1969; Stevanovski & Jolicoeur, 2003).Another theoretical approach to working memory seems to imply somewhat different reasons why visual and verbal tasks would or would not conflict. Whereas, in the model of Baddeley (1986), central-executive processes manipulate information that is held completely within passive types of storage, Cowan (1995Cowan ( , 2001 suggested that some information can be held also in the focus of attention (in addition to passively-held forms of storage). This information in the focus of attention was said to be subject to a capacity limit, as opposed to the temporal limits and interference factors that are prominent for the passively-held stores. A recent amendment of the working-memory model of Baddeley (1986) includes an episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2000), which could similarly be limited in capacity (Baddeley, 2001). With this type of approach, as well, it is still an open question as to when visual and verbal maintenance will conflict.

show abstract

Rehearsal and storage of visual information.

Cited by 173 publications

References 12 publications

Acquisition of information from rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal stimuli

Acquisition of information from rapidly presented verbal and nonverbal stimuli

The picture superiority effect in a cross-modality recognition task

When Do Visual and Verbal Memories Conflict? The Importance of Working-Memory Load and Retrieval.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About