September 2024
Volume 24, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2024
Object-location binding in visual working memory prevents effective updating
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Eva Lout
    The Ohio State University
  • William Narhi-Martinez
    The Ohio State University
  • Blaire Dube
    Memorial University of Newfoundland
  • Julie Golomb
    The Ohio State University
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  NIH R01-EY025648 (JG), NSF 1848939 (JG), NSERC PDF (BD)
Journal of Vision September 2024, Vol.24, 1097. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.1097
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Eva Lout, William Narhi-Martinez, Blaire Dube, Julie Golomb; Object-location binding in visual working memory prevents effective updating. Journal of Vision 2024;24(10):1097. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.1097.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Despite the importance of updating visual working memory (VWM) representations in our dynamic visual world, memory performance has been shown to be reliably worse for spatially dynamic objects compared to static objects. This is possibly due to robust binding of object features to their original locations. Here, we conducted two experiments (preregistered) to test the effectiveness of intentionally updating object spatial information in a dynamic spatial context. Each trial began with the presentation of four different colored squares within white placeholders. In Experiment 1, subjects were instructed to maintain and update all four memory items; in Experiment 2, subjects were retroactively cued to maintain and update only two of the memory items, allowing subjects to drop the adjacent non-cued memory items. In half of the trials, during the subsequent memory delay, the placeholders would rotate one position clockwise or counterclockwise. The experiment consisted of two instruction blocks: Update (instructed to mentally update the items’ locations when the placeholders rotated) and Ignore-Rotation (instructed to maintain the memory of the items in their original locations even when the placeholders rotated). At the end of the trial, participants were presented with a spatial probe and reported their memory of the color of the item in that location (original or updated, depending on instruction block) on a continuous color wheel. In Experiment 1, we observed large performance decrements when participants had to both intentionally update and, critically, attempt to ignore task-irrelevant rotations. In Experiment 2, even with a reduced load on VWM resources (only maintaining/updating two items), performance decrements persisted in both instruction contexts when the placeholders rotated. Analysis of systematic feature errors across both experiments revealed greater misreporting of nontargets when the display rotated, compared to static trials, regardless of instruction and even when those features were meant to be dropped from VWM.

×
×

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.

×