This study considered the efficacy of a Successive Field procedure in revealing properties of iconic memory. 8 subjects were required to identify differences between sequentially presented stimulus and target arrays of letters. While results were broadly in line with previous estimates of the capacity and duration of iconic storage, there was also evidence that identification of target letters depended on their position in the array.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AverbachE.SperlingG. (1961) Short-term storage of information in vision. In CherryC. (Ed.), Information theory. London, Eng.: Butterworth. Pp. 196–211.
2.
EstesW. K.TaylorH. A. (1964) A detection method and probabilistic models for assessing information processing from brief visual displays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 52, 446–454
3.
LongG. M. (1980) Iconic memory: A review and critique of the study of short-term visual storage. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 785–820
4.
LongG. M. (1985) The varieties of visual persistence: Comments on Yeomans and Irwin. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 381–385
5.
NislyS. J.WassermanG. S. (1989) Intensity dependence of perceived duration: Data, theories, and neural integration. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 483–496
6.
SperlingG. (1960) The information available in brief visual presentation. Psychological Monographs, 74, No. 11 (Whole No. 498).
7.
YeomansJ. M.IrwinD. E. (1985) Stimulus duration and partial report performances. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 163–169
