IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002927.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No Evidence for an Item Limit in Change Detection

Author

Listed:
  • Shaiyan Keshvari
  • Ronald van den Berg
  • Wei Ji Ma

Abstract

Change detection is a classic paradigm that has been used for decades to argue that working memory can hold no more than a fixed number of items (“item-limit models”). Recent findings force us to consider the alternative view that working memory is limited by the precision in stimulus encoding, with mean precision decreasing with increasing set size (“continuous-resource models”). Most previous studies that used the change detection paradigm have ignored effects of limited encoding precision by using highly discriminable stimuli and only large changes. We conducted two change detection experiments (orientation and color) in which change magnitudes were drawn from a wide range, including small changes. In a rigorous comparison of five models, we found no evidence of an item limit. Instead, human change detection performance was best explained by a continuous-resource model in which encoding precision is variable across items and trials even at a given set size. This model accounts for comparison errors in a principled, probabilistic manner. Our findings sharply challenge the theoretical basis for most neural studies of working memory capacity. Author Summary: Working memory is a fundamental aspect of human cognition. It allows us to remember bits of information over short periods of time and make split-second decisions about what to do next. Working memory is often tested using a change detection task: subjects report whether a change occurred between two subsequent visual images that both contain multiple objects (items). The more items are present in the images, the worse they do. The precise origin of this phenomenon is not agreed on. The classic theory asserts that working memory consists of a small number of slots, each of which can store one item; when there are more items than slots, the extra items are discarded. A modern model postulates that working memory is fundamentally limited in the quality rather than the quantity of memories. In a metaphor: instead of watering only a few plants in our garden, we water all of them, but the more plants we have, the less water each will receive on average. We show that this new model does much better in accounting for human change detection responses. This has consequences for the entire field of working memory research.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaiyan Keshvari & Ronald van den Berg & Wei Ji Ma, 2013. "No Evidence for an Item Limit in Change Detection," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002927
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002927
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002927&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002927?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven J. Luck & Edward K. Vogel, 1997. "The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions," Nature, Nature, vol. 390(6657), pages 279-281, November.
    2. Edward K. Vogel & Maro G. Machizawa, 2004. "Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity," Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6984), pages 748-751, April.
    3. Weiwei Zhang & Steven J. Luck, 2008. "Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7192), pages 233-235, May.
    4. Yaoda Xu & Marvin M. Chun, 2006. "Dissociable neural mechanisms supporting visual short-term memory for objects," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7080), pages 91-95, March.
    5. J. Jay Todd & René Marois, 2004. "Capacity limit of visual short-term memory in human posterior parietal cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6984), pages 751-754, April.
    6. Hendrikje Nienborg & Bruce G. Cumming, 2009. "Decision-related activity in sensory neurons reflects more than a neuron’s causal effect," Nature, Nature, vol. 459(7243), pages 89-92, May.
    7. K. V. Mardia, 1999. "Directional statistics and shape analysis," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(8), pages 949-957.
    8. Shaiyan Keshvari & Ronald van den Berg & Wei Ji Ma, 2012. "Probabilistic Computation in Human Perception under Variability in Encoding Precision," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-9, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Loic Matthey & Paul M Bays & Peter Dayan, 2015. "A Probabilistic Palimpsest Model of Visual Short-term Memory," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-34, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pahor, Anja & Jaušovec, Norbert, 2017. "Multifaceted pattern of neural efficiency in working memory capacity," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 23-34.
    2. Mohammad Zia Ul Haq Katshu & Giovanni d'Avossa, 2014. "Fine-Grained, Local Maps and Coarse, Global Representations Support Human Spatial Working Memory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Yuri A. Markov & Natalia A. Tiurina & Igor S. Utochkin, 2018. "Different features are stored independently in visual working memory but mediated by object-based representations," HSE Working papers WP BRP 101/PSY/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    4. J David Timm & Frank Papenmeier, 2019. "Reorganization of spatial configurations in visual working memory: A matter of set size?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Jifan Zhou & Jun Yin & Tong Chen & Xiaowei Ding & Zaifeng Gao & Mowei Shen, 2011. "Visual Working Memory Capacity Does Not Modulate the Feature-Based Information Filtering in Visual Working Memory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-10, September.
    6. Yuri A. Markov & Igor S. Utochkin, 2017. "The Effect of Object Distinctiveness on Object-Location Binding in Visual Working Memory," HSE Working papers WP BRP 79/PSY/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Carlo Baldassi & Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Marco Pirazzini, 2020. "A Behavioral Characterization of the Drift Diffusion Model and Its Multialternative Extension for Choice Under Time Pressure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5075-5093, November.
    8. S. Cerreia-Vioglio & F. Maccheroni & M. Marinacci & A. Rustichini, 2017. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: inside and outside the black box," Working Papers 615, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    9. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: outside and inside the black box," Working Papers 663, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Ken McAnally & Russell Martin, 2016. "Modelling Visual Change Detection and Identification under Free Viewing Conditions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Jack Phu & Michael Kalloniatis & Sieu K Khuu, 2016. "The Effect of Attentional Cueing and Spatial Uncertainty in Visual Field Testing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Zaikin, Oleg & Kushtina, Emma & Rozewski, Przemyslaw, 2006. "Model and algorithm of the conceptual scheme formation for knowledge domain in distance learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(3), pages 1379-1399, December.
    13. Haggar Cohen-Dallal & Isaac Fradkin & Yoni Pertzov, 2018. "Are stronger memories forgotten more slowly? No evidence that memory strength influences the rate of forgetting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Loic Matthey & Paul M Bays & Peter Dayan, 2015. "A Probabilistic Palimpsest Model of Visual Short-term Memory," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-34, January.
    15. Halbauer, Ingo & Jacob, Saskia & Klarmann, Martin, 2022. "Brand presentation order in voice shopping: Understanding the effects of sequential product presentation," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 759-778.
    16. Igor S. Utochkin & Vladislav A. Khvostov & Yulia M. Stakina, 2017. "Ensemble-Based Segmentation in the Perception of Multiple Feature Conjunctions," HSE Working papers WP BRP 78/PSY/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    17. Toshihiro Abe & Arthur Pewsey, 2011. "Sine-skewed circular distributions," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 683-707, August.
    18. Kaushik J Lakshminarasimhan & Alexandre Pouget & Gregory C DeAngelis & Dora E Angelaki & Xaq Pitkow, 2018. "Inferring decoding strategies for multiple correlated neural populations," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-40, September.
    19. Fernández de Marcos Giménez de los Galanes, Alberto & García Portugués, Eduardo, 2022. "Data-driven stabilizations of goodness-of-fit tests," DES - Working Papers. Statistics and Econometrics. WS 35324, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Estadística.
    20. Jastrzębski, Jan & Ciechanowska, Iwona & Chuderski, Adam, 2018. "The strong link between fluid intelligence and working memory cannot be explained away by strategy use," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 44-53.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002927. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.