scholarly journals Proactive interference results from visual working memory, not just contamination from visual long-term memory

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 1283
Author(s):  
Timothy Brady
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Proactive Interference ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Term Memory

Manifold Visual Working Memory

2020 ◽  
pp. 311-332
Author(s):  
Nicole Hakim ◽  
Edward Awh ◽  
Edward K. Vogel
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Neural Activity ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Memory Representations ◽  
Latent Representations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Spatial Locations

Visual working memory allows us to maintain information in mind for use in ongoing cognition. Research on visual working memory often characterizes it within the context of its interaction with long-term memory (LTM). These embedded-processes models describe memory representations as existing in three potential states: inactivated LTM, including all representations stored in LTM; activated LTM, latent representations that can quickly be brought into an active state due to contextual priming or recency; and the focus of attention, an active but sharply limited state in which only a small number of items can be represented simultaneously. This chapter extends the embedded-processes framework of working memory. It proposes that working memory should be defined operationally based on neural activity. By defining working memory in this way, the important theoretical distinction between working memory and LTM is maintained, while still acknowledging that they operate together. It is additionally proposed that active working memory should be further subdivided into at least two subcomponent processes that index item-based storage and currently prioritized spatial locations. This fractionation of working memory is based on recent research that has found that the maintenance of information distinctly relies on item-based representations as well as prioritization of spatial locations. It is hoped that this updated framework of the definition of working memory within the embedded-processes model provides further traction for understanding how we maintain information in mind.

scholarly journals Is working memory inherently more ‘precise’ than long-term memory? Extremely high fidelity visual long-term memories for frequently encountered objects

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalise Miner ◽  
Mark Schurgin ◽  
Timothy F. Brady
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Visual Working Memory ◽  
Visual Memory ◽  
Memory Systems ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Continuous Measure ◽  
High Fidelity ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Naturalistic Setting

Long-term memory is often considered easily corruptible, imprecise and inaccurate, especially in comparison to working memory. However, most research used to support these findings relies on weak long-term memories: those where people have had only one brief exposure to an item. Here we investigated the fidelity of visual long-term memory in more naturalistic setting, with repeated exposures, and ask how it compares to visual working memory fidelity. Using psychophysical methods designed to precisely measure the fidelity of visual memory, we demonstrate that long-term memory for the color of frequently seen objects is as accurate as working memory for the color of a single item seen 1 second ago. In particular, we show that repetition greatly improves long-term memory, including the ability to discriminate an item from a very similar item ('fidelity'), in both a lab setting (Exps. 1-3) and a naturalistic setting (brand logos, Exp. 4). Overall our results demonstrate the impressive nature of visual long-term memory fidelity, which we find is even higher fidelity than previously indicated in situations involving repetitions. Furthermore, our results suggest that there is no distinction between the fidelity of visual working memory and visual long-term memory, but instead both memory systems are capable of storing similar incredibly high fidelity memories under the right circumstances. Our results also provide further evidence that there is no fundamental distinction between the ‘precision’ of memory and the ‘likelihood of retrieving a memory’, instead suggesting a single continuous measure of memory strength best accounts for working and long-term memory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document