Visual working memory performance declines with the quantity of material stored and the duration of its maintenance, but it is disputed whether these constraints are independent or interact. Specifically, different studies have reached contradictory conclusions on whether greater memory load accelerates deterioration of the stored information during retention, a question with implications for storage mechanisms. Meanwhile, prominent models of visual working memory based on stable attractors predict that recall should become increasingly biased toward a fixed set of canonical features with longer retention, but empirical support is mixed. Uncertainty is further exacerbated by limited data, methodological variation, and inconsistent analytical approaches across studies. Moreover, previous studies have not always distinguished response variability from stimulus-specific biases nor considered the possibility of swap errors (intrusions). To address these issues, we conducted six new experiments and reanalyzed data from seven published experiments using consistent analytical methods to examine the effects of set size and delay on variability and bias. Our results show that recall variability increased with longer delays and higher set sizes, consistent with prior findings, and importantly, that these effects did not operate independently: The effect of delay was amplified at higher set sizes. We also observed consistent evidence for systematic biases across stimuli, but unlike variability, bias amplitude did not change with either set size or retention interval. These results support diffusion accounts of visual working memory maintenance, in which variability grows through the accumulation of random error, while challenging stable attractor accounts that predict systematic drift toward canonical values during maintenance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
There is broad agreement among memory researchers that WM processes can influence LTM formation. Prior research has suggested that holding information in WM for a longer time may benefit LTM because of mechanisms such as refreshing, elaboration, or consolidation – processes presumed to rely on focused attention. Howeve...
Caro Hautekiet, Klaus Oberauer· Journal of Cognition· 0 citations
Previous work has shown that visual working memory performance is higher for recognizable and meaningful stimuli relative to meaningless, but physically matched, stimuli (e.g., Asp et al., 2021). Here, we test whether the benefit for meaningful stimuli arises due to active storage in working memory or can, at least in...
Lauren Williams, Viola S. Störmer, Timothy F. Brady· Memory & Cognition· 1 citation
Understanding the forgetting mechanisms in working memory is a considerable challenge for cognitive psychologists. Traditional views attribute forgetting in working memory to interference and decay, but whether verbal working memory undergoes spontaneous decay is still debated. In the present study, we examined this is...
Hao Guo, Ruo-Yu Lu, C. Jarrold et al.· Journal of Experimental Psyc...· 0 citations
Working memory (WM) is often assumed to play a stronger role in mental operations than in pure storage. However, much of the evidence comes from tasks using novel stimuli requiring active maintenance. Everyday cognition, in contrast, often involves operating on information retrieved from long-term memory (LTM), which m...
Critical details are important to remember, whereas trivial information is not. The present research examined whether there were differences in relative susceptibility to proactive interference (PI) for high-value, low-value, zero-value, or negative-value information within working memory (WM) in younger adults. PI occ...
Sara B. Festini, Raquel Aguilar, Gian DePamphilis et al.· Journal of Experimental Psyc...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.