Greater Visual Working Memory for Real-world Objects is Related to Recollection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence by Brady & Störmer (2020) suggests participants have better visual working memory (VWM) performance for real-world objects compared to simple features when using maximally dissimilar foils. The mechanisms underlying this benefit, however, remain unknown. One possible explanation for why memory performance is greater for real-world objects may be that objects are more memorable than simple features. Consequently, working memory for real-world objects may show a greater reliance on recollection processes. To test this question, we investigated whether increased working memory performance for real-world objects compared to simple features (e.g., colours) is due to a reliance on familiarity or recollection processes. Specifically, we predicted participants would depend more on recollection than familiarity for real-world objects. In our experiment, 50 participants responded to a change-detection task for real-world objects and colored circles using a 6-point confidence scale. Their performance data was modeled using receiver operating characteristic (ROCs) curves. Additionally, we used a dual-process signal detection model to determine the relative contributions of recollection vs familiarity. The results reveal that participants had greater overall memory performance (d-prime) for the real-world objects compared to the colored circles. Additionally, both real-world objects and colored features relied on familiarity, however, real-world objects relied on familiarity to a greater extent. Further, only real-word objects relied on recollection. That is, a one-sample t-test demonstrated that there was no significant recollection component used during the identification of simple features. Overall, our findings suggest that working memory performance for real-world objects is qualitatively different than that for simple color features. That is, only memory for real-world objects depended on recollection processes – perhaps due to the increased distinctiveness of real-world objects. These findings reveal that visual working memory may not rely on a singular mechanism, but instead may depend on the type of stimuli being remembered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".