Independence is elusive: set size effects on encoding precision in visual search.

Looking for a target in a visual scene becomes more difficult as the number of stimuli increases. In a signal detection theory view, this is due to the cumulative effect of noise in the encoding of the distractors, and potentially on top of that, to an increase of the noise (i.e., a decrease of precision) per stimulus with set size, reflecting divided attention. It has long been argued that human visual search behavior can be accounted for by the first factor alone. While such an account seems to be adequate for search tasks in which all distractors have the same, known feature value (i.e., are maximally predictable), we recently found a clear effect of set size on encoding precision when distractors are drawn from a uniform distribution (i.e., when they are maximally unpredictable). Here we interpolate between these two extreme cases to examine which of both conclusions holds more generally as distractor statistics are varied. In one experiment, we vary the level of distractor heterogeneity; in another we dissociate distractor homogeneity from predictability. In all conditions in both experiments, we found a strong decrease of precision with increasing set size, suggesting that precision being independent of set size is the exception rather than the rule.

Factorial comparison of working memory models.

Three questions have been prominent in the study of visual working memory limitations: (a) What is the nature of mnemonic precision (e.g., quantized or continuous)? (b) How many items are remembered? (c) To what extent do spatial binding errors account for working memory failures? Modeling studies have typically focused on comparing possible answers to a single one of these questions, even though the result of such a comparison might depend on the assumed answers to both others. Here, we consider every possible combination of previously proposed answers to the individual questions. Each model is then a point in a 3-factor model space containing a total of 32 models, of which only 6 have been tested previously. We compare all models on data from 10 delayed-estimation experiments from 6 laboratories (for a total of 164 subjects and 131,452 trials). Consistently across experiments, we find that (a) mnemonic precision is not quantized but continuous and not equal but variable across items and trials; (b) the number of remembered items is likely to be variable across trials, with a mean of 6.4 in the best model (median across subjects); (c) spatial binding errors occur but explain only a small fraction of responses (16.5% at set size 8 in the best model). We find strong evidence against all 6 documented models. Our results demonstrate the value of factorial model comparison in working memory.

"Plateau"-related summary statistics are uninformative for comparing working memory models.

Performance on visual working memory tasks decreases as more items need to be remembered. Over the past decade, a debate has unfolded between proponents of slot models and slotless models of this phenomenon (Ma, Husain, Bays (Nature Neuroscience 17, 347-356, 2014). Zhang and Luck (Nature 453, (7192), 233-235, 2008) and Anderson, Vogel, and Awh (Attention, Perception, Psychophys 74, (5), 891-910, 2011) noticed that as more items need to be remembered, "memory noise" seems to first increase and then reach a "stable plateau." They argued that three summary statistics characterizing this plateau are consistent with slot models, but not with slotless models. Here, we assess the validity of their methods. We generated synthetic data both from a leading slot model and from a recent slotless model and quantified model evidence using log Bayes factors. We found that the summary statistics provided at most 0.15 % of the expected model evidence in the raw data. In a model recovery analysis, a total of more than a million trials were required to achieve 99 % correct recovery when models were compared on the basis of summary statistics, whereas fewer than 1,000 trials were sufficient when raw data were used. Therefore, at realistic numbers of trials, plateau-related summary statistics are highly unreliable for model comparison. Applying the same analyses to subject data from Anderson et al. (Attention, Perception, Psychophys 74, (5), 891-910, 2011), we found that the evidence in the summary statistics was at most 0.12 % of the evidence in the raw data and far too weak to warrant any conclusions. The evidence in the raw data, in fact, strongly favored the slotless model. These findings call into question claims about working memory that are based on summary statistics.