Visual working memory is traditionally studied using abstract, meaningless stimuli. Although studies using such simplified stimuli have been insightful in understanding the mechanisms of visual working memory, they also potentially limit our ability to understand how people encode and store conceptually rich and meaningful stimuli in the real world. Recent studies have demonstrated that meaningful and familiar visual stimuli that connect to existing knowledge are better remembered than abstract colors or shapes, indicating that meaning can unlock additional working memory capacity. These findings challenge current models of visual working memory and suggest that its capacity is not fixed but depends on the type of information that is being remembered and, in particular, how that information connects to preexisting knowledge.
AllenM. G.DeStefanoI. C.BradyT. F. (2021). Chunks are not “content-free:” Hierarchical representations preserve perceptual detail within chunks. In 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2021): Comparative cognition animal minds (Vol. 1, pp. 721–727). Cognitive Science Society.
2.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502006.x
3.
AspI. E.StörmerV. S.BradyT. F. (2021). Greater visual working memory capacity for visually matched stimuli when they are perceived as meaningful. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 33(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01693
4.
BallardD. H.HayhoeM. M.PelzJ. B. (1995). Memory representations in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66
5.
BartlettF. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BartschL. M.ShepherdsonP. (2022). Freeing capacity in working memory (WM) through the use of long-term memory (LTM) representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(4), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001024
7.
BaysP.SchneegansS.MaW.BradyT. F. (2024). Representation and computation in visual working memory. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 1016–1034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01871-2
8.
BoutonnetB.LupyanG. (2015). Words jump-start vision: A label advantage in object recognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(25), 9329–9335. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5111-14.2015
9.
BradyT. F.AlvarezG. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological Science, 22(3), 384–392.
10.
BradyT. F.KonkleT.AlvarezG. A. (2009). Compression in visual working memory: Using statistical regularities to form more efficient memory representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016797
11.
BradyT. F.KonkleT.AlvarezG. A. (2011). A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and towards structured representations. Journal of Vision, 11(5), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.4
12.
BradyT. F.KonkleT.AlvarezG. A.OlivaA. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105(38), 14325–14329.
13.
BradyT. F.StörmerV. S. (2022). The role of meaning in visual working memory: Real-world objects, but not simple features, benefit from deeper processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 48(7), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001014
14.
BradyT. F.StörmerV. S. (2024). Comparing memory capacity across stimuli requires maximally dissimilar foils: Using deep convolutional neural networks to understand visual working memory capacity for real-world objects. Memory & Cognition, 52(3), 595–609.
15.
BradyT. F.StörmerV. S.AlvarezG. A. (2016). Working memory is not fixed-capacity: More active storage capacity for real-world objects than for simple stimuli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113(27), 7459–7464. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520027113
16.
BrownL. A.WesleyR. W. (2013). Visual working memory is enhanced by mixed strategy use and semantic coding. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.773004
17.
CarlisleN. B.AritaJ. T.PardoD.WoodmanG. F. (2011). Attentional templates in visual working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(25), 9315–9322.
18.
ChungY. H.BradyT. F.StörmerV. S. (2023a). No fixed limit for storing simple visual features: Realistic objects provide an efficient scaffold for holding features in mind. Psychological Science, 34(7), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231171339
19.
ChungY. H.BradyT. F.StörmerV. S. (2023b). Sequential encoding aids working memory for meaningful objects’ identities but not for their colors. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01486-4
20.
ChunharasC.BradyT. F. (2023). Chunking, attraction, repulsion and ensemble effects are ubiquitous in visual working memory. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/es3b8
21.
CohenM. A.KonkleT.RheeJ. Y.NakayamaK.AlvarezG. A. (2014). Processing multiple objects is limited by overlap in neural channels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 8955–8960.
22.
ConciM.KreyenmeierP.KröllL.SpiechC.MüllerH. J. (2021). The nationality benefit: Long-term memory associations enhance visual working memory for color-shape conjunctions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 28(6), 1982–1990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01957-2
23.
CowanN. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
24.
CurbyK. M.GlazekK.GauthierI. (2009). A visual short-term memory advantage for objects of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 94–107.
25.
DraschkowD.KallmayerM.NobreA. C. (2021). When natural behavior engages working memory. Current Biology, 31(4), 869–874.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.11.013
26.
EndressA. D.PotterM. C. (2014). Large capacity temporary visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 548–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033934
27.
EngeA.SüßF.Abdel RahmanR. (2023). Instant effects of semantic information on visual perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 43(26), 4896–4906. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2038-22.2023
28.
HollingworthA. (2004). Constructing visual representations of natural scenes: The roles of short- and long-term visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(3), 519–537.
LiX.XiongZ.TheeuwesJ.WangB. (2020). Visual memory benefits from prolonged encoding time regardless of stimulus type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 46(10), 1998–2005. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000847
31.
LinP.-H.LuckS. J. (2012). Proactive interference does not meaningfully distort visual working memory capacity estimates in the canonical change detection task. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00042
32.
LuckS.VogelE. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281. https://doi.org/10.1038/36846
33.
LuriaR.BalabanH.AwhE.VogelE. K. (2016). The contralateral delay activity as a neural measure of visual working memory. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 62, 100–108.
34.
MarkovY.UtochkinI. S.BradyT. F. (2021). Real-world objects are not stored in holistic representations in visual working memory. Journal of Vision, 21(3), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.3.18
35.
NgiamW. X. Q.KhawK. L. C.HolcombeA. O.GoodbournP. T. (2018). Visual working memory for letters varies with familiarity but not complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(10), 1761–1775. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000682
36.
OverkottC.SouzaA. S. (2023). The fate of labeled and nonlabeled visual features in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 49(3), 384–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001089
37.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and language. In SegalS. J. (Ed.), Imagery (pp. 7–32). Academic Press.
38.
PotterM. C. (1993). Very short-term conceptual memory. Memory & Cognition, 21, 156–161.
39.
QuirkC.AdamK. C. S.VogelE. K. (2020). No evidence for an object working memory capacity benefit with extended viewing time. ENeuro, 7(5), Article ENEURO.0150-20.2020. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0150-20.2020
40.
SerencesJ. T.EsterE. F.VogelE. K.AwhE. (2009). Stimulus-specific delay activity in human primary visual cortex. Psychological Science, 20(2), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02276.x
StarrA.SrinivasanM.BungeS. A. (2020). Semantic knowledge influences visual working memory in adults and children. PLOS ONE, 15(11), Article e0241110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241110
43.
ThibeaultA.StojanoskiB.EmrichS. M. (2024). Investigating the effects of perceptual complexity versus conceptual meaning on the object benefit in visual working memory. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 24, 453–468. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-024-01158-z
44.
TorresR. E.DupreyM.CampbellK. L.EmrichS. M. (2023). Not all objects are created equal: The object benefit in visual working memory is supported by greater recollection, but only for some objects. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v2ta5
45.
UnsworthN.FukudaK.AwhE.VogelE. K. (2014). Working memory and fluid intelligence: Capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.003
46.
VeldsmanM.MitchellD. J.CusackR. (2017). The neural basis of precise visual short-term memory for complex recognisable objects. NeuroImage, 159, 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.033
47.
VogelE. K.MachizawaM. G. (2004). Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature, 428(6984), 748–751.
48.
WybleB.SwanG.Callahan-FlintoftC. (2016). Measuring visual memory in its native format. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 790–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.012
49.
XieW.ZhangW. (2017). Familiarity increases the number of remembered Pokémon in visual short-term memory. Memory and Cognition, 45(4), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0679-7
50.
ZimmerH. D.FischerB. (2020). Visual working memory of Chinese characters and expertise: The expert’s memory advantage is based on long-term knowledge of visual word forms. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 516. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00516
