The lower bounds of massive memory: Investigating memory for object details after incidental encoding

Abstract

Visual long-term memory capacity appears massive and detailed when probed explicitly. In the real world, however, memories are usually built from chance encounters. Therefore, we investigated the capacity and detail of incidental memory in a novel encoding task, instructing participants to detect visually distorted objects among intact objects. In a subsequent surprise recognition memory test, lures of a novel category, another exemplar, the same object in a different state, or exactly the same object were presented. Lure recognition performance was above chance, suggesting that incidental encoding resulted in reliable memory formation. Critically, performance for state lures was worse than for exemplars, which was driven by a greater similarity of state as opposed to exemplar foils to the original objects. Our results indicate that incidentally generated visual long-term memory representations of isolated objects are more limited in detail than recently suggested.

False memories when viewing overlapping scenes

“…Thus, the representation of the studied item might be noisy, and the performance in the memory studies might result from gist-based representations rather than storing detailed information about the stimuli. A similar finding of a rather low-level detailed representation was observed in the incidental encoding paradigm ( Draschkow et al, 2019 ), in which participants’ memory was tested using the Yes/No task. Again, the accuracy was lower than that in the original study by Brady et al (2008) .…”

The detail is in the difficulty: Challenging search facilitates rich incidental object encoding

“…Old-new recognition (ONR) probes, by contrast, may force observers to query memory for additional details of the encoded event, possibly reducing the likelihood of familiarity-based recognition judgments (Cunningham et al, 2015). For instance, Draschkow, Reinecke, Cunningham, and Võ (2018) recently used ONR probes to show that sensitivity decreased for "state" lures (e.g., an old object presented in a different physical state) relative to exemplar lures (e.g., a different category-exemplar relative to the old object) for incidentally encoded objects, although such a difference was not observed in previous work using 2-AFC probes (e.g., Brady et al, 2008;Cunningham et al, 2015). While it is possible that observers are more likely to query memory for a specific memory trace when probed by ONR relative to AFC probes, prior research suggests that AFC tests populated with within-category lures encourage participants to retrieve detailed memories (e.g., Guerin, Robbins, Gilmore, & Schacter, 2012).…”

Search superiority: Goal-directed attentional allocation creates more reliable incidental identity and location memory than explicit encoding in naturalistic virtual environments

“…More often, we engage in goal-directed behavior, such as setting the table or looking for the salt, during which location and identity representations of the surrounding objects are generated "on the fly". There is strong support for reliable memory of incidentally encoded items (Castelhano & Henderson, 2005;Draschkow et al, 2014;Draschkow, Reinecke, Cunningham, & Võ, 2018;Draschkow & Võ, 2017;Hollingworth, 2012;Hout & Goldinger, 2010, 2012Kit et al, 2014;Võ & Wolfe, 2012, 2013bWilliams, 2010;Williams, Henderson, & Zacks, 2005;Wolfe, Alvarez, Rosenholtz, Kuzmova, & Sherman, 2011), but the importance of probing LTM content which was formed incidentally really becomes apparent when it is used to guide proactive behavior in naturalistic environments. Võ and Wolfe (2012) demonstrated that attention is most profoundly influenced by item memory established during search ("looking for"), compared to explicit memorization and free viewing in complex scenes ("looking at").…”