October 2003
Volume 3, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   October 2003
How are visual inputs compared with memory representations in the change-detection paradigm?
Author Affiliations
  • Joo-seok Hyun
    Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, USA
  • Geoffrey F. Woodman
    Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, USA
  • Edward K. Vogel
    Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, USA
  • Adam T. Niese
    Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, USA
  • Steven J. Luck
    Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, USA
Journal of Vision October 2003, Vol.3, 322. doi:10.1167/3.9.322
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Joo-seok Hyun, Geoffrey F. Woodman, Edward K. Vogel, Adam T. Niese, Steven J. Luck; How are visual inputs compared with memory representations in the change-detection paradigm?. Journal of Vision 2003;3(9):322. doi: 10.1167/3.9.322.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Change-detection paradigms have become a popular means of assessing the nature of visual working memory, but little research has addressed the mechanisms by which changes are actually detected. That is, how is the memory of the previous stimulus array compared with the perceptual representation of the current stimulus array? In the present study, we sought to determine whether the comparison process is limited or unlimited in capacity. To accomplish this, we made use of the fact that the detection of a change triggers a shift of attention to the changed object, as indicated by the presence of an attention-related ERP component (the N2pc wave) over the hemisphere contralateral to the changed item. If the comparison process is limited in capacity, then N2pc latency should increase as the number of items to be compared increases. However, if the comparison processes is not limited in capacity, then N2pc latency should be independent of the number of comparisons required.

Two change-detection experiments were conducted that required subjects to remember a sample array containing several oriented bars and compare it to a test array presented after a 900-ms retention interval. In the first experiment, the orientation of one bar changed on half the trials, and subjects reported the presence or absence of a change. In the second experiment, one bar always changed in orientation, and subjects reported whether this change occurred in the left or right hemifield. In both experiments, an N2pc component was elicited by the changed item in the test array, and its onset time (ca. 200 ms) was essentially constant across set sizes of one to four objects. These results indicate that the comparison between the memory representation of the sample array and the perceptual representation of the test array was rapid and unlimited in capacity.

Hyun, J.-s., Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., Niese, A. T., Luck, S. J.(2003). How are visual inputs compared with memory representations in the change-detection paradigm? [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 3( 9): 322, 322a, http://journalofvision.org/3/9/322/, doi:10.1167/3.9.322. [CrossRef]
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×