September 2015
Volume 15, Issue 12
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2015
How Automatic is Visual Recognition Memory?
Author Affiliations
  • Karla Evans
    University of York
  • Alan Baddeley
    University of York
Journal of Vision September 2015, Vol.15, 81. doi:10.1167/15.12.81
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Karla Evans, Alan Baddeley; How Automatic is Visual Recognition Memory?. Journal of Vision 2015;15(12):81. doi: 10.1167/15.12.81.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Humans have an astonishing ability to remember with high fidelity previously viewed scenes with robust memory for visual detail (Konkle et al., 2010). To better understand the mechanism that affords us this massive memory we investigated the automaticity of encoding into visual long-term memory. We studied this in two ways across three experiments. First, measuring the effect of limiting the time of encoding by varying the allotted time to encode each image while keeping overall time of study constant. Second, measuring the effect of an attentionally-demanding concurrent task on subsequent retention by systematically varying the levels of demand imposed by the concurrent executive task. If encoding is automatic neither shorter exposure nor concurrent demand should influence subsequent recognition. If executive attention is required than memory performance should decline as load is increased and encoding time decreases. We tested scene memory using a standard massive memory paradigm with a heterogeneous (452 real complex scenes) and a homogenous (304 doors) image set examining if time of encoding and concurrent tasks affects scene memorability. Even when encoding a very rich heterogeneous set of images the encoding time mattered, with a significant reduction in performance from 3 seconds (d’= 1.11) to 1 second (d’=.60) study time. Interestingly, further reduction in encoding time to 0.5 seconds shows no significant decrement suggesting that encoding might follow a two-step process. Further, high fidelity encoding is reduced when during encoding there is a competing working memory task both for heterogeneous (d’=.91 for no load to d’=.41 for high load) as well as homogenous (d’=.65 for no load to d’=.21 for high load) image sets with amplified reduction when there is little idiosyncratic detail in the image. Results suggest that visual recognition memory encoding is the outcome of a two-stage rather than an automatic process.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015

×
×

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.

×