Short article: Visual similarity at encoding and retrieval in an item recognition task

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to examine the effects of shape similarity in visual working memory using a six alternative recognition task of Chinese characters. Shape similarity among items was manipulated at both encoding and retrieval in order to assess in which phase similarity impairs recognition to a greater degree. Results revealed that performance is particularly facilitated by high discriminability at retrieval but also by the presence of similar items at encoding, as similarity simplifies the global representation of the display and reduces memory load. Moreover, results provide further evidence that the classical similarity effect can be reversed in the visual domain when item memory (as opposed to order) is assessed.

Keywords

Visual working memory Visual short-term memory Similarity effects Recognition Relational processing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Avons

S. E.

Mason

(1999). Effects of visual similarity on serial report and item recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 52A, 217–240.

Conrad

Hull

A. J.

(1964). Information, acoustic confusion and memory span. British Journal of Psychology 55, 429–432.

Dewhurst

S. A.

Holmes

S. J.

Brandt

K. R.

Dean

G. M.

(2006). Measuring the speed of the conscious components of recognition memory: Remembering is faster than knowing. Consciousness and Cognition 15, 147–162.

Einstein

G. O.

Hunt

R. R.

(1980). Levels of processing and organization: Additive effects of individual-item and relational processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6, 588–598.

Fallon

A. B.

Groves

Tehan

(1999). Phonological similarity and trace degradation in the serial recall task: When CAT helps RAT, but not MAN. International Journal of Psychology 34, 301–307.

Forster

K. I.

Forster

J. C.

(2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 35, 116–124.

Fournet

Juphard

Monnier

Roulin

J. L.

(2003). Phonological similarity in free and serial recall: The effect of increasing retention intervals. International Journal of Psychology 38, 384–389.

Gathercole

S. E.

Gardiner

J. M.

Gregg

V. H.

(1982). Modality and phonological similarity effects in serial recall: Does one's own voice play a role?. Memory & Cognition 10, 176–180.

Goldstone

R. L.

Barsalou

(1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition 65, 231–262.

10.

Hay

D. C.

Smyth

M. M.

Hitch

G. J.

Horton

N. J.

(2007). Serial position effects in short-term visual memory: A SIMPLE explanation?. Memory & Cognition 35, 176–190.

11.

Hitch

G. J.

Halliday

M. S.

Schaafstal

A. M.

Schraagen

J. M.

(1988). Visual working memory in young children. Memory & Cognition 16, 120–132.

12.

Hue

C. W.

Erickson

J. R.

(1988). Short-term memory for Chinese characters and radicals. Memory & Cognition 16, 196–205.

13.

Humphreys

G. W.

Quinlan

P. T.

Riddoch

M. J.

(1989). Grouping processes in visual search: Effects with single and combined-feature targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118, 258–279.

14.

Hunt

R. R.

(2003). Two contributions of distinctive processing to accurate memory. Journal of Memory & Language 48, 811–825.

15.

Hunt

R. R.

Einstein

G. O.

(1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20, 497–514.

16.

Hunt

R. R.

Worthen

J. B.

(2006). Distinctiveness and memory New York: Oxford University Press.

17.

Jalbert

Saint-Aubin

Tremblay

(2008). Visual similarity in short-term recall for where and when. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61, 353–360.

18.

Kahana

M. J.

Sekuler

(2002). Recognizing spatial patterns: A noisy exemplar approach. Vision Research 42, 2177–2192.

19.

Karlsen

P. J.

Gravir

A. G.

Johannessen

Endestad

Lian

(2007). Why does the phonological similarity effect reverse with nonwords?. Psychological Research 71, 448–457.

20.

Logie

R. H.

(1995). Visuo-spatial working memory Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21.

Logie

R. H.

Della Sala

Wynn

Baddeley

A. D.

(2000). Visual similarity effects in immediate serial recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 53A, 626–646.

22.

Luck

S. J.

Vogel

E. K.

(1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 390, 279–281.

23.

Mewhort

D. J. K.

Johns

E. E.

(2000). The extralist-feature effect: Evidence against item matching in short-term recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129, 262–284.

24.

Nosofsky

Kantner

(2006). Exemplar similarity, study list homogeneity, and short-term perceptual recognition. Memory & Cognition 34, 112–124.

25.

Poirier

Saint-Aubin

Musselwhite

Mohanadas

Mahammed

(2007). Visual similarity effects on short-term memory for order: The case of verbally labeled pictorial stimuli. Memory & Cognition 35, 711–723.

26.

Puff

C. R.

(1979). Memory organization and structure New York: Academic Press.

27.

Saito

Logie

R. H.

Morita

Law

(2008). Visual and phonological similarity effects in verbal immediate serial recall: A test with kanji materials. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 1–17.

28.

Tulving

(1981). Similarity relations in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20, 479–496.

29.

Wolford

Hollingsworth

(1974). Evidence that short-term memory is not the limiting factor in the tachistoscopic full-report procedure. Memory & Cognition 2, 796–800.

30.

Yeh

S. L.

J. L.

Chen

I. P.

(1997). The perceptual dimensions underlying the classification of the shapes of Chinese characters. Chinese Journal of Psychology 39, 47–74.

31.

Yonelinas

A. P.

(2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 441–512.