Memory for objects in a display sometimes reveals attraction—the objects are remembered as more similar to one another than they actually were—and sometimes reveals repulsion—the objects are remembered as more different from one another. The conditions that lead to these opposing memory biases are poorly understood; there is no theoretical framework that explains these contrasting dynamics. In three experiments (each N = 30 adults), we demonstrate that memory fidelity provides a unifying dimension that accommodates the existence of both types of visual working memory interactions. We show that either attraction or repulsion can arise simply as a function of manipulations of memory fidelity. We also demonstrate that subjective ratings of fidelity predict the presence of attraction or repulsion on a trial-by-trial basis. We discuss how these results bear on computational models of visual working memory and contextualize these results within the literature of attraction and repulsion effects in long-term memory and perception.
BaddeleyA. D.AllenR. J.HitchG. J. (2011). Binding in visual working memory: The role of the episodic buffer. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1393–1400.
2.
BaeG. Y.LuckS. J. (2017). Interactions between visual working memory representations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(8), 2376–2395.
3.
BaeG. Y.LuckS. J. (2019a). Reactivation of previous experiences in a working memory task. Psychological Science, 30(4), 587–595.
4.
BaeG. Y.LuckS. J. (2019b). What happens to an individual visual working memory representation when it is interrupted?British Journal of Psychology, 110(2), 268–287.
5.
BaeG. Y.LuckS. J. (2020). Serial dependence in vision: Merely encoding the previous-trial target is not enough. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 293–300.
6.
BaeG. Y.OlkkonenM.AllredS. R.FlombaumJ. I. (2015). Why some colors appear more memorable than others: A model combining categories and particulars in color working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 744–763.
7.
BaysP. M. (2018). Reassessing the evidence of capacity limits in neural signals related to working memory. Cerebral Cortex, 28, 1432–1438.
8.
BaysP. M.CatalaoR. F.HusainM. (2009). The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. Journal of Vision, 9(10), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.10.7
9.
BaysP. M.HusainM. (2008). Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision. Science, 321(5890), 851–854.
10.
BradyT. F.AlvarezG. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological Science, 22(3), 384–392.
11.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
12.
ChunharasC.RademakerR. L.BradyT. F.SerencesJ. T. (2019). Adaptive memory distortion in visual working memory. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/e3m5a/
13.
CicchiniG. M.MikellidouK.BurrD. (2017). Serial dependencies act directly on perception. Journal of Vision, 17(14), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.14.6
14.
CowanN. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.
15.
DubéC.ZhouF.KahanaM. J.SekulerR. (2014). Similarity-based distortion of visual short-term memory is due to perceptual averaging. Vision Research, 96, 8–16.
16.
DutilhG.AnnisJ.BrownS. D.CasseyP.EvansN. J.GrasmanR. P.KupitzC. N. (2019). The quality of response time data inference: A blinded, collaborative assessment of the validity of cognitive models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1051–1069.
17.
Fei-FeiL.IyerA.KochC.PeronaP. (2007). What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene?Journal of Vision, 7(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.1.10
18.
FritscheM.SpaakE.de LangeF. P. (2020). A Bayesian and efficient observer model explains concurrent attractive and repulsive history biases in visual perception. eLife, 9, Article e55389. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55389
19.
FukudaK.WoodmanG. F. (2017). Visual working memory buffers information retrieved from visual long-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114(20), 5306–5311.
20.
GibsonJ. J.RadnerM. (1937). Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. I. Quantitative studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 453–467.
21.
GolombJ. D. (2015). Divided spatial attention and feature-mixing errors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(8), 2562–2569.
22.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Vol. 1). Wiley.
23.
HeathcoteA.BrownS. D.WagenmakersE.-J. (2015). An introduction to good practices in cognitive modeling. In ForstmannB. U.WagenmakersE.-J. (Eds.), An introduction to model-based cognitive neuroscience (pp. 25–48). Springer.
24.
HemmerP.SteyversM. (2009). A Bayesian account of reconstructive memory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 189–202.
25.
HuttenlocherJ.HedgesL. V.DuncanS. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98(3), 352–376.
26.
JammalamadakaS. R.SenguptaA. (2001). Topics in circular statistics (Vol. 5). World Scientific.
27.
KleinerM.BrainardD. H.PelliD. G. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3?Perception, 36(ECVP Abstract Suppl.).
LuckS. J.VogelE. K. (2013). Visual working memory capacity: From psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 391–400.
30.
MattheyL.BaysP. M.DayanP. (2015). A probabilistic palimpsest model of visual short-term memory. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(1), Article e1004003. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004003
31.
OberauerK. (2017). An interference model of visual working memory. Psychological Review, 124, 21–59.
32.
OhB.-I.KimY.-J.KangM.-S. (2019). Ensemble representations reveal distinct neural coding of visual working memory. Nature Communications, 10(1), Article 5665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13592-6
33.
OrhanA. E.JacobsR. A. (2014). Toward ecologically realistic theories in visual short-term memory research. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 76, 2158–2170. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0649-8
34.
PascucciD.MancusoG.SantandreaE.Della LiberaC.PlompG.ChelazziL. (2019). Laws of concatenated perception: Vision goes for novelty, decisions for perseverance. PLOS Biology, 17(3), Article e3000144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000144
35.
PatelT. N.SteyversM.BenjaminA. S. (2019). Monitoring the ebb and flow of attention: Does controlling the onset of stimuli during encoding enhance memory?Memory & Cognition, 47(4), 706–718.
36.
RobinsonM. M.BenjaminA. S.IrwinD. E. (2020). Is there a K in capacity? Assessing the structure of visual short-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 121, Article 101305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101305
37.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. L.SunD.MoreyR. D.IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 225–237.
38.
SahanM. I.DalmaijerE. S.VergutsT.HusainM.FiasW. (2019). The graded fate of unattended stimulus representations in visuospatial working memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00374
39.
ScolariM.SerencesJ. T. (2009). Adaptive allocation of attentional gain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(38), 11933–11942.
40.
SmithP. L.LilburnS. D.CorbettE. A.SewellD. K.KyllingsbækS. (2016). The attention-weighted sample-size model of visual short-term memory: Attention capture predicts resource allocation and memory load. Cognitive Psychology, 89, 71–105.
41.
SuchowJ. W.BradyT. F.FougnieD.AlvarezG. A. (2013). Modeling visual working memory with the MemToolbox. Journal of Vision, 13(10), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.10.9
42.
SuzukiS.CavanaghP. (1997). Focused attention distorts visual space: An attentional repulsion effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(2), 443–463.
43.
ThompsonP.BurrD. (2009). Visual aftereffects. Current Biology, 19, 11–14.
44.
van den BergR.ShinH.ChouW. C.GeorgeR.MaW. J. (2012). Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 8780–8785.
45.
van den BergR.YooA. H.MaW. J. (2017). Fechner’s law in metacognition: A quantitative model of visual working memory confidence. Psychological Review, 124, 197–214.
46.
WeiX.-X.StockerA. A. (2015). A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain ‘anti-Bayesian’ percepts. Nature Neuroscience, 18, 1509–1517.
47.
WilkenP.MaW. J. (2004). A detection theory account of change detection. Journal of Vision, 4(12), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.12.11
48.
YuX.GengJ. J. (2019). The attentional template is shifted and asymmetrically sharpened by distractor context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 336–353.
49.
ZhangW.LuckS. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453(7192), 233–235.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
