Abstract We review current methods for evaluating models in the cognitive sciences, including theoretically-based approaches, such as Bayes Factors and MDL measures, simulation approaches, including model mimicry evaluations, and practical approaches, such as validation and generalization measures. We argue that, while often useful in specific settings, most of these approaches are limited in their ability to give a general assessment of models. We argue that hierarchical methods generally, and hierarchical Bayesian methods specifically, can provide a more thorough evaluation of models in the cognitive sciences. We present two worked examples of hierarchical Bayesian analyses, to demonstrate how the approach addresses key questions of descriptive adequacy, parameter interference, prediction, and generalization in principled and coherent ways.

Abstract not found

The authors present a new model of free recall on the basis of M. W. Howard and M. J. Kahana’s (2002a) temporal context model and M. Usher and J. L. McClelland’s (2001) leaky-accumulator decision model. In this model, contextual drift gives rise to both short-term and long-term recency effects, and contextual retrieval gives rise to short-term and long-term contiguity effects. Recall decisions are controlled by a race between competitive leaky accumulators. The model captures the dynamics of immediate, delayed, and continual distractor free recall, demonstrating that dissociations between short- and long-term recency can naturally arise from a model in which an internal contextual state is used as the sole cue for retrieval across time scales.

Traditional memory research has focused on identifying separate memory systems and exploring different stages of memory processing. This approach has been valuable for establishing a taxonomy of memory systems and characterizing their function but has been less informative about the nature of stored memory representations. Recent research on visual memory has shifted toward a representation-based emphasis, focusing on the contents of memory and attempting to determine the format and structure of remembered information. The main thesis of this review will be that one cannot fully understand memory systems or memory processes without also determining the nature of memory representations. Nowhere is this connection more obvious than in research that attempts to measure the capacity of visual memory. We will review research on the capacity of visual working memory and visual long-term memory, highlighting recent work that emphasizes the contents of memory. This focus impacts not only how we estimate the capacity of the systemVgoing beyond quantifying how many items can be remembered and moving toward structured representationsVbut how we model memory systems and memory processes. Keywords: memory, working memory, long-term memory, visual cognition, memory capacity, memory fidelity Citation: Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and toward structured representations. Journal of Vision, 11(5):4, 1-34, http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/5/4, doi:10.1167/11.5.4. Introduction Tulving Early on, William James (1890) proposed the distinction between primary memoryVthe information held in the "conscious present"Vand secondary memory, which consists of information that is acquired, stored outside of conscious awareness, and then later remembered. This distinction maps directly onto the modern distinction between short-term memory (henceforth working memory) and long-term memory The emphasis on memory systems and memory processes has been quite valuable in shaping cognitive and neural models of memory. In general, this approach aims to characterize memory systems in a way that generalizes over representational content Research on visual perception takes the opposite approach, attempting to determine what is being represented and to generalize across processes. For example, early stages of visual representation consist of orientation and spatial frequency features. Vision research has measured the properties of these features, such as their tuning curves and sensitivity (e.g., Here, we review recent research in the domains of visual working memory and visual long-term memory, focusing on how models of these memory systems are altered and refined by taking the contents of memory into account. Visual working memory The working memory system is used to hold information actively in mind and to manipulate that information to perform a cognitive task The study of visual working memory has largely focused on the capacity of the system, both because limited capacity is one of the main hallmarks of working memory and because individual differences in measures of working memory capacity are correlated with differences in fluid intelligence, reading comprehension, and academic achievement In the broader working memory literature, a significant amount of research has focused on characterizing memory limits based on how quickly information can be refreshed (e.g., Here, we review research that focuses on working memory representations, including their fidelity, structure, and effects of stored knowledge. While not an exhaustive review of the literature, these examples highlight the fact that working memory representations have a great deal of structure beyond the level of individual items. This structure can be characterized as a hierarchy of properties, from individual features to individual objects to acrossobject ensemble features (spatial context and featural context). Together, the work reviewed here illustrates how a representation-based approach has led to important advances, not just in understanding the nature of stored representations themselves but also in characterizing working memory capacity and shaping models of visual working memory. The fidelity of visual working memory Recent progress in modeling visual working memory has resulted from an emphasis on estimating the fidelity of visual working memory representations. In general, the capacity of any memory system should be characterized both in terms of the number of items that can be stored and in terms of the fidelity with which each individual item can be stored. Consider the case of a USB drive that can store exactly 1000 images: the number of images alone is not a complete estimate of this USB drive's storage capacity. It is also important to consider the resolution with which those images can be stored: if each image can be stored with a very low resolution, say 16  16 pixels, then the drive has a lower capacity than if it can store the same number of images with a high resolution, say 1024  768 pixels. In general, the true capacity of a memory system can be estimated by multiplying the maximum number of items that can be stored by the fidelity with which each individual item can be stored (capacity = quantity  fidelity). For a memory system such as your USB drive, there is only an information limit on memory storage, so the number of files that can be stored is limited only by the size of those files. Whether visual working memory is best characterized as an information- or whether it has a predetermined and fixed item limit Importantly, this standard change detection paradigm provides little information about how well each individual object was remembered. The change detection paradigm indicates only that items were remembered with sufficient fidelity to distinguish an object's color from a categorically different color. How much information do observers actually remember about each object? Several new methods have been used to address this question (see Journal of Vision Fidelity of storage for complex objects While early experiments using large changes in a change detection paradigm found evidence for a slot model, in which memory is limited to storing a fixed number of items, subsequent experiments with newer paradigms that focused on the precision of memory representations have suggested an information-limited model. Specifically, This result was not due to an inability to discriminate the more complex shapes, such as 3D cubes: observers could easily detect a change between cubes when only a single cube was remembered, but they could not detect the same change when they tried to remember 4 cubes. This result suggests that encoding additional items reduced the resolution with which each individual item could be remembered, consistent with the idea that there is an information limit on memory. Using the same paradigm but varying the difficulty of the memory test, Awh, Fidelity of simple feature dimensions While the work of Alvarez and Cavanagh Wilken and Ma's However, Zhang and Luck Conclusion To summarize, by focusing on the contents of visual working memory, and on the fidelity of representations in particular, there has been significant progress in models of visual working memory and its capacity. At present, there is widespread agreement in the visual working memory literature that visual working memory has an extremely limited capacity and that it can represent 1 item with greater fidelity than 3-4 items. This finding requires the conclusion that working memory is limited by a resource that is shared among the representations of different items (i.e., information-limited). Some models claim that resource allocation is discrete and quantized into slots Research on the fidelity of working memory places important constraints on both continuous and discrete models. If working memory is slot-limited, then those slots must be recast as a flexible resource, all of which can be allocated to a single item to gain precision in its representation or which can be divided separately among multiple items yielding relatively low-resolution representations of each item. If memory capacity is informationlimited, then it is necessary to explain why under some conditions it appears that there is an upper bound on memory storage of 3-4 objects (e.g., The representation of features vs. objects in visual working memory Any estimate of memory capacity must be expressed with some unit, and what counts as the appropriate unit depends upon how information is represented. Since George Miller's (1956) seminal paper claiming a limit of 7 T 2 chunks as the capacity of working memory, a significant amount of work has attempted to determine the units of storage in working memory. In the domain of verbal memory, for example, debate has flourished about the extent to which working memory capacity is limited by storing a fixed number of chunks vs. time-based decay Objects are not always encoded in their entirety A significant body of work has demonstrated that observers do not always encode objects in their entirety. When multiple features of an object appear on distinct object parts, observers are significantly impaired at representing the entire object Costs for encoding multiple features within an object Furthermore, another body of work has demonstrated that encoding more than one feature of the same object does not always come without cost. In addition to limits on the number of values that may be stored within a particular feature dimension, data on the fidelity of representations suggest that even separate visual features from the same object are not stored completely independently. In an elegant design combining elements of the original work of Benefits of object-based storage beyond separate buffers While observers cannot completely represent 3-4 objects independently of their information load, there is a benefit to encoding multiple features from the same object compared to the same number of features on different objects Journal of Vision (2011) 11(5):4, 1-34 Brady, Konkle, & Alvarez 6 Jiang showed that it is easier to remember the color and orientation of 2 objects (4 features in total) than the color of 2 objects and the orientation of 2 separate objects (still 4 features in total). In addition, while Conclusion So what is the basic unit of representation in visual working memory? While there are significant benefits to encoding multiple features of the same object compared to multiple features across different objects (e.g., One possibility is that the initial encoding process is object-based (or location-based), but that the "unit" of visual working memory is a hierarchically structured feature bundle This proposal for the structure of memory representations is consistent with the full pattern of evidence described above, including the benefit for remembering multiple features from the same objects relative to different objects and the cost for remembering multiple features from the same object. Moreover, this hierarchical working memory theory is consistent with evidence showing a specific impairment in object-based working memory when attention is withdrawn from items (e.g. Furthermore, there is some direct evidence for separate capacities for feature-based and object-based working memory representations, with studies showing separable priming effects and memory capacities It is important to note that our proposed hierarchical feature bundle model is not compatible with a straightforward item-based or chunk-based model of working memory capacity. A key part of such proposals (e.g., Thus far, we have considered only the structure of individual items in working memory. Next, we review research demonstrating that working memory representations include another level of organization that represents properties that are computed across sets of items. Interactions between items in visual working memory In the previous two sections, we discussed the representation of individual items in visual working memory. However, research focusing on contextual effects in memory demonstrates that items are not stored in memory completely independent of one another. In particular, several studies have shown that items are encoded along with spatial context information (the spatial layout of items in the display) and with featural context information (the ensemble statistics of items in the display). These results suggest that visual working memory representations have a great deal of structure beyond the individual Journal of Vision Influences of spatial context Visual working memory paradigms often require observers to remember not only the featural properties of items (size, color, shape, identity) but also where those items appeared in the display. In these cases, memory for the features of individual items may be dependent on spatial working memory as well (for a review of spatial working memory, see Influence of feature context or "ensemble statistics" In addition to spatial context effects on item memory, it is likely that there are feature context effects as well. For instance, even in a display of squares with random colors, some displays will tend to have more "warm colors" on average, whereas others will have more "cool colors" on average, and others still will have no clear across-item structure. This featural context, or "ensemble statistics" (Alvarez, 2011), could influence memory for individual items (e.g., Given that ensemble information would be useful for remembering individual items, it is important to consider the possibility that these ensemble statistics will influence Journal of Vision Perceptual grouping and dependence between items Other research has shown that items tend to be influenced by the other items in visual working memory, although such work has not explicitly attempted to distinguish influences due to the storage of individual items and influences from ensemble statistics. For example, Lin and Luck (2008; using colored squares) and Viswanathan, Perl, Bisscher, Kahana, and Sekuler (2010; using Gabor stimuli) showed improved memory performance when items appear more similar to one another (see also Cases of explicit perceptual grouping make the nonindependence between objects even more clear. For example, Woodman, Vecera, and Luck Perceptual grouping vs. chunking vs. hierarchically structured memory What is the relationship between perceptual grouping, chunking, and the hierarchically structured memory model we have described? Perceptual grouping and chunking are both processes by which multiple elements are combined into a single higher order description. For example, a series of 10 evenly spaced dots could be grouped into a single line, and the letters F, B, and I can be chunked into the familiar acronym FBI (e.g., :4, 1-34 Brady, Konkle, & Alvarez 9 assume that the only limits on memory capacity come from the number of chunks or groups that can be encoded Conclusion Taken together, these results provide significant evidence that individual items are not represented independent of other items on the same display and that visual working memory stores information beyond the level of individual items. Put another way, every display has multiple levels of structure, from the level of feature representations to individual items to the level of groups or ensembles, and these levels of structure interact. It is important to note that these levels of structure exist and vary across trials, even if the display consists of randomly positioned objects that have randomly selected feature values. The visual system efficiently extracts and encodes structure from the spatial and featural information across the visual scene, even when, in the long run over displays, there may not be any consistent regularities. This suggests that any theory of visual working memory that specifies only the representation of individual items or groups cannot be a complete model of visual working memory. The effects of stored knowledge on visual working memory Most visual working memory research requires observers to remember meaningless, unrelated items, such as randomly selected colors or shapes. This is done to minimize the role of stored knowledge and to isolate working memory limitations from long-term memory. However, in the real world, working memory does not operate over meaningless, unrelated items. Observers have stored knowledge about most items in the real world, and this stored knowledge constrains what features and objects we expect to see and where we expect to see them. The role of such stored knowledge in modulating visual working memory representations has been controversial. In the broader working memory literature, there is clear evidence of the use of stored knowledge to increase the number of items remembered in working memory Biases from stored knowledge One uncontroversial effect of long-term memory on working memory is that there are biases in working memory resulting from prototypes or previous experience. For example, Stored knowledge effects on memory capacity While these biases in visual working memory representations are systematic and important, they do not address the question of whether long-term knowledge can be used to store more items in visual working memory. This Journal of Vision In contrast to this earlier work, Brady, Konkle, and Alvarez (2009) have recently shown clear effects of learned knowledge on working memory. In their paradigm, observers were shown standard working memory stimuli in which they had to remember the color of multiple objects It is possible that Brady, Konkle, and Alvarez (2009) found evidence for the use of stored knowledge in working memory coding because their paradigm teaches associations between items rather than attempting to make the items themselves more familiar. For instance, seeing the same set of colors for hundreds of trials might not improve the encoding of colors or shapes, because the One group of observers saw certain color pairs more often than others (e.g., yellow and green might occur next to each other 80% of the time), whereas the other group saw completely random color pairs. For the group that saw repeated color pairs, the number of color remembered increased across blocks, nearly doubling the number remembered by the random group by the end of the session. Journal of Vision Conclusion Observers have stored knowledge about most items in the real world, and this stored knowledge constrains what features and objects we expect to see and where we expect to see them. There is significant evidence that the representation of items in working memory is dependent on this stored knowledge. Thus, items for which we have expertise, like faces, are represented with more fidelity Visual working memory conclusion A great deal of research on visual working memory has focused on how to characterize the capacity of the system. We have argued that in order to characterize working memory capacity, it is important to take into account both the number of individual items remembered and the fidelity with which each individual item is remembered. Moreover, it is necessary to specify what the units of working memory storage are, how multiple units in memory interact, and how stored knowledge affects the representation of information in memory. In general, we believe that theories and models of working memory must be expanded to include memory representations that go beyond the representation of individual items and include hierarchically structured representations, both at the individual item level (hierarchical feature bundles) and across individual items. There is considerable evidence that working memory representations are not based on independent items, that working memory also stores ensembles that summarize the spatial and featural information across the display, and further, that there are interactions between working memory and stored knowledge even in simple displays. Moving beyond individual items toward structured representations certainly complicates any attempt to estimate working memory capacity. The answer to how many items can you hold in visual working memory depends on what kind of items you are trying to remember, how precisely they must be remembered, how they are presented on the display, and your history with those items. Even representations of simple items have structure at multiple levels. Thus, models that wish to accurately account for the full breadth of data and memory phenomena must make use of structured representations, especially as we move beyond colored dot objects probed by their locations toward items with more featural dimensions or toward real-world objects in scenes. Visual long-term memory Before discussing the capacity of long-term memory, it is important to make the distinction between visual longterm memory and stored knowledge. By "visual long-term memory," we refer to the ability to explicitly remember an image that was seen previously but that has not been continuously held actively in mind. Thus, visual long-term memory is the passive storage and subsequent retrieval of visual episodic information. By "stored knowledge," we refer to the preexisting visual representations that underlie our ability to perceive and recognize visual input. For example, when we first see an image, say of a red apple, stored knowledge about the visual form and features of apples in general enables us to recognize the object as such. If we are shown another picture of an apple hours later, visual long-term memory enables us to decide whether this is the exact same apple we saw previously. While working memory is characterized by its severely limited capacity, long-term memory is characterized by its very large capacity: people can remember thousands of episodes from their lives, dating back to their childhood. However, in the same way that working memory capacity cannot be characterized simply in terms of the number of items stored, the capacity of long-term memory cannot be fully characterized by estimating the number of individual episodes that can be stored. Long-term memory representations are highly structured, consisting of multiple levels of representation from individual items to higher level conceptual representations. Just as we proposed for working memory, these structured representations should be taken into account, both when quantifying and characterizing the capacity of the system and when modeling memory processes such as retrieval. Generally, work in the broader field of long-term memory has not emphasized the nature of stored representations and has focused instead on identifying different memory systems (e.g., declarative vs. nondeclarative, episodic vs. semantic) and understanding the processing stages of those systems, particularly the encoding and retrieval of information (e.g., Critically, in order to account for the range of performance across these manipulations, such models have postulated a role for some form of "psychological similarity" between items, like how many features they share (e.g., Clearly, the more complete our model of the structure and content of long-term memory representations, the more accurately we will be able to model retrieval processes. Thus, the rich, structured nature of long-term memory representations and the role of distinctiveness in long-term memory retrieval pose challenges to quantifying and characterizing the capacity of visual long-term memory. Here, we review recent work that has examined these representation-based issues within the domain of visual long-term memory: What exactly is the content of the representations stored in visual long-term memory? What features of the incoming visual information are critical for facilitating successful memory for those items? By assessing both the quantity and the fidelity of the visual long-term memory representations, we can more accurately quantify the capacity of this visual episodic memory system. By measuring the content of visual long-term memory representations, and what forms of psychological similarity cause this information to be forgotten, we can use memory as a probe into the structure of stored knowledge about objects and scenes.

Artists, advertisers, and photographers are routinely presented with the task of creating an image that a viewer will remember. While it may seem like image memorability is purely subjective, recent work shows that it is not an inexplicable phenomenon: variation in memorability of images is consistent across subjects, suggesting that some images are intrinsically more memorable than others, independent of a subjects ’ contexts and biases. In this paper, we used the publicly available memorability dataset of Isola et al. [13], and augmented the object and scene annotations with interpretable spatial, content, and aesthetic image properties. We used a feature-selection scheme with desirable explaining-away properties to determine a compact set of attributes that characterizes the memorability of any individual image. We find that images of enclosed spaces containing people with visible faces are memorable, while images of vistas and peaceful scenes are not. Contrary to popular belief, unusual or aesthetically pleasing scenes do not tend to be highly memorable. This work represents one of the first attempts at understanding intrinsic image memorability, and opens a new domain of investigation at the interface between human cognition and computer vision.

Working memory is usually defined in cognitive psychology as a system devoted to the simultaneous processing and maintenance of information. However, although many models of working memory have been put forward during the last decades, they often leave underspecified the dynamic interplay between processing and storage. Moreover, the account of their interaction proposed by the most popular A. D. Baddeley and G. Hitch’s (1974) multiple-component model is contradicted by facts, leaving unresolved one of the main issues of cognitive functioning. In this article, the author derive from the time-based resource-sharing model of working memory a mathematical function relating the cognitive load involved by concurrent processing to the amount of information that can be simultaneously maintained active in working memory. A meta-analysis from several experiments testing the effects of processing on storage corroborates the parameters of the predicted function, suggesting that it properly reflects the law relating the 2 functions of working memory.

# The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Theories of time perception typically assume that some sort of memory represents time intervals. This memory component is typically underdeveloped in theories of time perception. Following earlier work that suggested that representations of different time intervals contaminate each other (Grondin, 2005; Jazayeri & Shadlen, 2010; Jones & Wearden, 2004), an experiment was conducted in which subjects had to alternate in reproducing two intervals. In two conditions of the experiment, the duration of one of the intervals changed over the experiment, forcing subjects to adjust their representation of that interval, while keeping the other constant. The results show that the adjustment of one interval carried over to the other interval, indicating that subjects were not able to completely separate the two representations. We propose a temporal reference memory that is based on existing memory models (Anderson, 1990). Our model assumes that the representation of an interval is based on a pool of recent experiences. In a series of simulations, we show that our pool model fits the data, while two alternative models that have previously been proposed do not.

Copyright & reuse City University London has developed City Research Online so that its users may access the research outputs of City University London's staff. Copyright © and Moral Rights for this paper are retained by the individual author(s) and / or other copyright holders. All material in City Research Online is checked for eligibility for copyright before being made available in the live archive. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to from other web pages. Versions of research The version in City Research Online may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check the Permanent City Research Online URL above for the status of the paper. Enquiries If you have any enquiries about any aspect of City Research Online, or if you wish to make contact with the author(s) of this paper, please email the team at publications@city.ac.uk.STM in ASD 1

Rhesus monkeys were trained and tested in visual and auditory list-memory tasks with sequences of four travel pictures or four natural/environmental sounds followed by single test items. Acquisitions of the visual list-memory task are presented. Visual recency (last item) memory diminished with retention delay, and primacy (first item) memory strengthened. Capuchin monkeys, pigeons, and humans showed similar visual-memory changes. Rhesus learned an auditory memory task and showed octave generalization for some lists of notes—tonal, but not atonal, musical passages. In contrast with visual list memory, auditory primacy memory diminished with delay and auditory recency memory strengthened. Manipulations of interitem intervals, list length, and item presentation frequency revealed proactive and retroactive inhibition among items of individual auditory lists. Repeating visual items from prior lists produced interference (on nonmatching tests) revealing how far back memory extended. The possibility of using the interference function to separate familiarity vs. recollective memory processing is discussed.

Abstract not found