Object similarity can improve visual working memory (VWM) performance in the change-detection task, but impair the recognition performance when it occurs at retrieval of VWM in the recognition task. The effect of direction similarity is an issue that has not been well resolved. Furthermore, electrophysiological evidence in support of the mechanisms that underlie the effects of similarity is still scarce. In the current study, we conducted three behavioural experiments to examine the effects of direction similarity on memory performance with regard to both the encoding and retrieval phases of VWM and one event-related potential (ERP) experiment to explore the neural signatures of direction similarity in VWM. Our behavioural studies indicated that direction similarity improved performance when it occurred at the encoding phase but impaired performance when it occurred at the retrieval phase. Moreover, the ERP experiment showed that the amplitude of the contralateral delay activity (CDA) increased with the increasing set size for similar but not dissimilar directions. In addition, the CDA amplitude for similar directions was lower than that for dissimilar directions at set size 2. Taken together, these findings suggest that direction similarity at encoding has a positive effect on VWM performance and at retrieval has a negative effect. Given that VWM capacity depends on information load and the number of objects, the positive effect of similarity may be attributed to reduced information load of memory objects.
AlvarezG. A., & CavanaghP. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological Science, 15(2), 106–111.
2.
AvonsS. E., & MasonA. (1999). Effects of visual similarity on serial report and item recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52(1), 217–240.
3.
BradyT. F., & TenenbaumJ. B. (2013). A probabilistic model of visual working memory: Incorporating higher order regularities into working memory capacity estimates. Psychological review, 120(1), 85–109.
4.
ClarkS. E., & GronlundS. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 3(1), 37–60.
5.
ConradR. (1964). Acoustic confusions in immediate memory. British journal of Psychology, 55(1), 75–84.
6.
CowanN. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.
7.
DelvenneJ. F., & BruyerR. (2004). Does visual short-term memory store bound features?Visual Cognition, 11(1), 1–27.
8.
DrewT. W., McColloughA. W., & VogelE. K. (2006). Event-related potential measures of visual working memory. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 37(4), 286–291.
9.
DuncanJ., & HumphreysG. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological review, 96(3), 433–458.
10.
EinsteinG. O., & HuntR. R. (1980). Levels of processing and organization: Additive effects of individual-item and relational processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(5), 588–598.
11.
EriksenC. W., & SpencerT. (1969). Rate of information processing in visual perception: Some results and methodological considerations. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 79(2, Pt2), 1–16.
12.
GaoZ., DingX., YangT., LiangJ., & ShuiR. (2013). Coarse-to-fine construction for high-resolution representation in visual working memory. PloS one, 8(2), e57913. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057913
13.
GaoZ., LiJ., LiangJ., ChenH., YinJ., & ShenM. (2009). Storing fine detailed information in visual working memory—Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Vision, 9(7), 17, 11–11.
14.
GaoZ., XuX., ChenZ., YinJ., ShenM., & ShuiR. (2011). Contralateral delay activity tracks object identity information in visual short term memory. Brain research, 1406, 30–42.
15.
GaoZ., YinJ., XuH., ShuiR., & ShenM. (2011). Tracking object number or information load in visual working memory: Revisiting the cognitive implication of contralateral delay activity. Biol Psychol, 87(2), 296–302.
16.
HintzmanD. L., & CurranT. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 1–18.
17.
HueC. W., & EricksonJ. R. (1988). Short-term memory for Chinese characters and radicals. Memory & Cognition, 16(3), 196–205.
18.
HuntR. R. (2003). Two contributions of distinctive processing to accurate memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 811–825.
19.
HuntR. R., & EinsteinG. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 497–514.
20.
HuntR. R., & WorthenJ. B. (2006). Distinctiveness and memory. New York, US: Oxford University Press.
21.
IkkaiA., McColloughA. W., & VogelE. K. (2010). Contralateral delay activity provides a neural measure of the number of representations in visual working memory. Journal of neurophysiology, 103(4), 1963–1968.
22.
JalbertA., Saint-AubinJ., & TremblayS. (2008). Visual similarity in short-term recall for where and when. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 353–360.
23.
JohnsonJ. S., SpencerJ. P., LuckS. J., & SchönerG. (2009). A dynamic neural field model of visual working memory and change detection. Psychological Science, 20(5), 568–577.
24.
JolicoeurP., Dell'AcquaR., & CrebolderJ. (2001). The attentional blink bottleneck. In ShapiroK. L. (Ed.), The limits of attention (pp. 82–99). New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
LinP.-H., & LuckS. J. (2009). The influence of similarity on visual working memory representations. Visual Cognition, 17(3), 356–372.
26.
LogieR. H., Della SalaS., WynnV., & BaddeleyA. D. (2000). Visual similarity effects in immediate verbal serial recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(3), 626–646.
27.
LuckS. J., & VogelE. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279–281.
28.
LuriaR., SessaP., GotlerA., JolicœurP., & Dell'AcquaR. (2010). Visual short-term memory capacity for simple and complex objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(3), 496–512.
29.
LuriaR., & VogelE. K. (2011). Shape and color conjunction stimuli are represented as bound objects in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1632–1639.
30.
MateJ., & BaquésJ. (2009). Visual similarity at encoding and retrieval in an item recognition task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1277–1284.
31.
McColloughA. W., MachizawaM. G., & VogelE. K. (2007). Electrophysiological measures of maintaining representations in visual working memory. Cortex, 43(1), 77–94.
32.
OlsonI. R., & JiangY. (2002). Is visual short-term memory object based? Rejection of the “strong-object” hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(7), 1055–1067.
33.
PetersonD. J., & BerryhillM. E. (2013). The Gestalt principle of similarity benefits visual working memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 20(6), 1282–1289.
34.
PetersonD. J., GözenmanF., ArciniegaH., & BerryhillM. E. (2015). Contralateral delay activity tracks the influence of Gestalt grouping principles on active visual working memory representations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(7), 2270–2283.
35.
QiS., ChenJ., HitchmanG., ZengQ., DingC., LiH., & HuW. (2014). Reduced representations capacity in visual working memory in trait anxiety. Biol Psychol, 103, 92–99.
36.
QuinlanP., & CohenD. (2012). Grouping and binding in visual short-term memory. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 38(5), 1432–1438.
37.
RotelloC. M., & HeitE. (1999). Two-process models of recognition memory: Evidence for recall-to-reject?Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 432–453.
38.
SanockiT., & SulmanN. (2011). Color relations increase the capacity of visual short-term memory. Perception-London, 40(6), 635–648.
39.
SemlitschH. V., AndererP., SchusterP., & PresslichO. (1986). A solution for reliable and valid reduction of ocular artifacts, applied to the P300 ERP. Psychophysiology, 23(6), 695–703.
40.
ShapiroK. L., & MillerC. E. (2011). The role of biased competition in visual short-term memory. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1506–1517.
41.
ShenM., YuW., XuX., & GaoZ. (2013). Building blocks of visual working memory: Objects or boolean maps?Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 743–753.
42.
ToddJ. J., & MaroisR. (2004). Capacity limit of visual short-term memory in human posterior parietal cortex. Nature, 428, 751–754.
43.
TulvingE. (1981). Similarity relations in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 479–496.
44.
VogelE. K., & MachizawaM. G. (2004). Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature, 428(6984), 748–751.
45.
VogelE. K., McColloughA. W., & MachizawaM. G. (2005). Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature, 438(7067), 500–503.
46.
VogelE. K., WoodmanG. F., & LuckS. J. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 92–114.
47.
WeiZ., WangX. J., & WangD. H. (2012). From distributed resources to limited slots in multiple-item working memory: A spiking network model with normalization. The Journal of neuroscience, 32(33), 11228–11240.
48.
WertheimerM. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II. Psychologische Forschung, 4(1), 301–350.
49.
WheelerM. E., & TreismanA. M. (2002). Binding in short-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(1), 48–64.
50.
WoodmanG. F., VeceraS. P., & LuckS. J. (2003). Perceptual organization influences visual working memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 10(1), 80–87.
51.
XuY. (2002a). Encoding color and shape from different parts of an object in visual short-term memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(8), 1260–1280.
52.
XuY. (2002b). Limitations of object-based feature encoding in visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), 458–468.
53.
XuY. (2006). Understanding the object benefit in visual short-term memory: The roles of feature proximity and connectedness. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(5), 815–828.
54.
XuY., & ChunM. M. (2006). Dissociable neural mechanisms supporting visual short-term memory for objects. Nature, 440(7080), 91–95.
55.
XuY., & ChunM. M. (2009). Selecting and perceiving multiple visual objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 167–174.
56.
YehS. L., LiJ. L., TakeuchiT., SunV., & LiuW. R. (2003). The role of learning experience on the perceptual organization of Chinese characters. Visual Cognition, 10(6), 729–764.
57.
YonelinasA. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517.
58.
ZhangW., & LuckS. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453(7192), 233–235.
