
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

72035
10.1038/s41598-024-72035-5
Article
Correlative comparison of visual working memory paradigms and associated models
Hojjati Fatemeh 1
Motahharynia Ali 12
Adibi Armin 1
Adibi Iman 13
Sanayei Mehdi mehdi.sanayei@gmail.com

4
1 https://ror.org/04waqzz56 grid.411036.1 0000 0001 1498 685X Isfahan Neuroscience Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 https://ror.org/04waqzz56 grid.411036.1 0000 0001 1498 685X Regenerative Medicine Research Center (RMRC), Department of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 https://ror.org/04waqzz56 grid.411036.1 0000 0001 1498 685X Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
4 https://ror.org/04xreqs31 grid.418744.a 0000 0000 8841 7951 School of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, 1956836484 Iran
6 9 2024
6 9 2024
2024
14 208526 3 2024
3 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
When studying the working memory (WM), the ‘slot model’ and the ‘resource model’ are two main theories used to describe how information retention occurs. The slot model shows that WM capacity consists of a certain number of predefined slots available for information storage. This theory explains that there is a binary condition during information recall in which information is either wholly maintained within a slot or forgotten. The resource model has a resolution-based approach, suggesting a continuous resource able to be distributed among a number of items in WM capacity. Recently hybrid models have been introduced, suggesting that WM may not strictly conform to only one model. Accordingly, to understand the relationship between two of the most widely used paradigms in WM evaluation, we implemented a correlational assessment in two different psychophysics tasks, an analog recall paradigm with sequential bar presentation and a delayed match-to-sample (DMS) task with checkerboard stimuli. Our study revealed significant correlations between WM performance in the DMS task and recall error, precision, and sources of errors in the sequential paradigm. Overall, the findings emphasize the importance of considering both tasks in understanding WM processes, as they shed light on the debate between the slot and resource models by revealing overlapping elements in both theories and the tasks used to evaluate WM capacity.

Keywords

Resource model
Slot model
Working memory
Subject terms

Neuroscience
Learning and memory
Working memory
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2400104 Adibi Iman issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Working memory (WM) is a limited short term storage for temporary information retention and manipulation playing a critical role in multiple cognitive functions such as language comprehension, learning and reasoning1,2. The limited capacity of WM is a distinctive feature, that has been the subject of interest in cognitive research, traditionally suggested to hold a limited number of items simultaneously, ranging from four to seven, as is described by Miller, Cowan and Rouder et al.3–5. Simple and complex span tasks were primarily used in this field, and other paradigms, including change detection tasks, were introduced after6–8. An example of the change detection task was utilized by Luck and Vogel where participants were asked to memorize stimulus arrays consisting of 1–12 colored squares with different orientations9. After a short period, a test array appeared and participants were asked if the test pattern was the same as previously presented, or if any of the squares had changed in color or orientation. They found that the accuracy in recall was significantly higher when the number of memorized items were lower than 3–4. Evidence from these paradigms described these limitations in capacity using ‘the slot model’. This model conceptualizes WM capacity with a predefined number of slots available in an all-or-none format for information storage10.

The creative adjustments of change detection tasks and the introduction of more complex paradigms, such as analog recall paradigms, shifted the focus on the fidelity with which items are preserved instead of WM content. By introducing these paradigms with variable features and dimensions, it was suggested that the precision of WM varies based on the flexibility of resources allocated to it. If presented objects have a higher visual complexity, a fewer number of items are able to be maintained, giving rise to another mainstream theory: the ‘resource model’.11. This model proposes a dynamic allocation of resources to memorized items, while the slot model previously did not provide a quality estimation for resolution of recall12,13. The resource model is based on the foundation that measurements of stimuli in WM are inherently noisy and this noise increases as the number of stimuli increase, which will in turn lead to limitations in memory recall14.

Errors in recall can stem from different stages of data processing which show three prominent categories using delayed estimation techniques and change detection tasks: target errors, swap errors and random guessing. Swap errors occur when participant response is around a non-probed item while target errors are detected when a participant response is within a range close to a probed item in WM. Additionally, new findings suggest that swap errors may result from familiarity signals affecting noise levels as set sizes and delay intervals increase, leading to increased location noise around the non-target15. Conversely, random guessing is attributed to a failure in producing a response close to any of the target or non-target feature values with a uniform distribution14,16.

Recent evidence suggest that strict categorization of visual WM between slot and resource models are less reflective of experimental data and a stimulus-specific bias theory is more relevant17,18. For instance, as mentioned previously, stimulus characteristics, object structure, complexity, and overall scene structure, are what determine which model is a better fit19–21. The various paradigms, such as delayed match-to-sample (DMS) and analog recall tasks, each elucidate different characteristics and features of WM limits due to the distinct differences in their overall framework. For example, DMS tasks can interpret participant reactions based on correct or incorrect responses, assuming that either an item is fully maintained or forgotten without considering memory resolution. In contrast, analog recall tasks typically present a range of options for participants to choose from, assuming internal and external noise that influence memory recall. This raises the question of how these tasks are evaluating WM capacity and if there are fundamental differences in performance measures and precision.

With the goal to understand the correlation between WM precision and capacity, and the underlying similarities of the DMS and analog recall tasks, we conducted this study. Participants’ performances in the DMS task with checkerboard stimuli and sequential paradigm with bar stimuli were correlated revealing intrinsic association between the two measures of WM. The significant implication of our work can also be applied in clinical settings when working with patients that suffer from neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis that require cognitive follow-up. In these situations, content-based WM tasks can be administered which are easier to use and less time-consuming providing similar assessments.

Methods

Setting

Visual stimuli for task setup were generated with MATLAB software (MATLAB 2019a, The MathWorks, Inc, Natick, MA) and controlled by the Psychtoolbox 3 extension22. Participants sat in a dimly lit room with a distance of ~ 48 cm from a cathode ray tube monitor (CRT, 15″, refresh rate of 75 Hz). A total of 30 healthy volunteers (7 females, 26.56 ± 4.61 years old, from 21 to 37 years old) were recruited for this study and enrolled in two visual WM tasks: analog recall paradigm with sequential bar presentation and a DMS with checkerboard stimuli.

Sequential paradigm with bar stimuli

In the sequential task, each trial began with a central fixation point (0.26°) displayed for 2 s followed by presentation of a red, blue and green bar (pseudorandom order, 2.57° by 0.19°, Fig. 1A). The minimum angular difference between bars was 10 angular degrees and each bar was presented for 500 ms and there was a 500 ms delay (where a blank screen was displayed) between bars. Participants were instructed to memorize the orientation of each bar. After presentation of the last bar, a vertical probe bar (in red, blue, or green) was presented to the participants. They were asked to adjust the orientation of the probe bar to one of the previously displayed bars with the same color (target bar) using a computer mouse. By clicking on the right button of the computer mouse, to confirm their decision, they received visual feedback showing the correct orientation of the target bar, their response, and the angular difference between their answer and the bar in question. We recorded the orientation of presented bars, participant’s response, and recall error (angular difference between target angle and participant response for each trial). We collected data from 6 blocks, each consisting of 30 trials (i.e., 180 trials per person). A low memory load task was also implemented which consisted of a single bar stimulus instead of three. Each participant performed 30 trials with one bar stimulus in the analog report task (instead of three) and bar orientation, participant response, and recall error was recorded. Before beginning the main task, a 10-trial training block was used to familiarize the participants with the procedure.Fig. 1 Schematic design of Working Memory (WM) tasks. (A) In the analog recall paradigm with sequential bar presentation, participants were asked to memorize bar orientations of three consecutively presented bars. After a 1s delay interval they were asked to match the probe bar to the angle of one of the previously presented bars with the same color. (B) For the Delayed Match-to-Sample (DMS) task with checkerboard stimuli, participants were asked to memorize a checkerboard pattern and after a random delay interval of 0.5, 1, 2, 4 or 8 s they were asked to select the correct pattern previously presented between two different checkerboard patterns.

Delayed match-to-sample task (DMS)

For the DMS task, participants were asked to look at a central fixation point (0.26°) for 2 s. After that a 4 by 4 checkerboard (4.83° × 4.83°) was presented to the participants (Fig. 1B). On each trial, 6 to 10 squares (out of 16) were yellow and the rest were red. Participants were asked to memorize the pattern. After a delay of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, or 8 s, where only the fixation point was displayed, participants were presented with two checkerboards. One was the same as the previously shown pattern (sample probe) and the other had one yellow square swapped randomly with a red square. These two checkerboards were presented on the right and left side of the screen (3° from each other). Participants were asked to report whether the right or the left checkerboard was the same as the sample stimulus by pressing the right or left arrow keys on the computer keyboard. The test trial patterns had always exactly the same number of red/yellow squares as the sample checkerboard and only the location of a single square was modified during each trial, not the color of the squares. Test checkerboards were kept on the screen until participant response or when the 4 s window ended. Visual feedbacks were given using a green disc (1.93°) for a correct, red for an incorrect response, or a blue if no response was given within 4 s. Each block consisted of 30 trials (5 repetitions for each delay) and each participant was enrolled in 6 trial blocks in total (i.e., 180 trials). Before beginning the main task, a 10-trial training block similar to the original test was used to familiarize the participant with the paradigm.

Statistical analysis

The total sample size required for this study was calculated using GPower 3.1, aiming to achieve a moderate level of correlation (ρ) of 0.5 for the bivariate model, with an α error probability of 0.05 and desired power (1 − β err prob) of 80%23. The required sample size was expected to be 29 participants.

The statistical analyses were done with MATLAB 2023a. An analog report MATLAB toolbox from Bays lab was implemented calculating the circular mean for recall error for each participant12. Precision, defined as the reciprocal of circular standard deviation of recall error was calculated for each individual. To investigate the sources of error in recalling information, the three-component Mixture Model was implemented. Using this model, the target proportion (Gaussian variability in reporting the orientation around the target bar), non-target proportion (swap error, Gaussian variability in misreporting the orientation around non-target bars) and, uniform proportion (random guessing) were calculated for each participant. Performance in the checkerboard task was defined as the ratio of correct responses to all given responses.

To calculate the correlation between tasks, we used Spearman’s correlation coefficient between performance in the DMS, and recall error and precision of the sequential task, separately. We also measured the correlation (Spearman’s) between the performance in DMS and the three sources of error that we obtained from the three-component Mixture Model. Furthermore, the correlation analyses between performance from each delay period (0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 s) with recall error, precision, and target, non-target, and uniform proportions of bar-specific responses were separately calculated. Correction for multiple comparisons was done using the Bonferroni method to calculate adjusted p-values.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. This study followed the latest update of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Iranian National Committee of Ethics in Biomedical Research (Approval ID: IR.MUI.MED.REC.1400.441).

Results

A total of 30 healthy participants (7 females, 26.56 ± 4.61 years old, from 21 to 37) participated in the analog recall task with sequential bar presentation and DMS task with checkerboard stimuli which is demonstrated in Fig. 1A,B. By conducting a Spearman’s correlation analysis, we found that participants’ performance in the DMS task was negatively and significantly correlated with the mean recall error in the sequential task (r = − 0.60, p < 0.003, Fig. 2A). We also found that performance in the DMS task was positively correlated with the precision of the sequential task (r = 0.60, p < 0.003, Fig. 2B). Furthermore, we found that while performance of the DMS task was positively correlated with target proportion (r = 0.59, p < 0.003, Fig. 2C), it was negatively correlated with non-target proportion (swap error, r = − 0.55, p < 0.01, Fig. 2D). Performance did not show a significant correlation with uniform proportion (r = − 0.22, p = 1, Fig. 2E).Fig. 2 Correlations between parameters in analog recall paradigm with performance of DMS task. Correlation between (A) recall error, (B) precision, (C) target, (D) non-target (swap error), and (E) uniform proportions with DMS performance (ratio of correct response). Rho and p value of Spearman’s correlation are provided above each subplot.

A similar pattern was observed when we calculated the correlation between performance in the DMS task for each delay, with recall error, precision, target proportion, non-target proportion, and uniform proportion for each bar order (Fig. 3A–E). We found that the performance in the DMS task was more correlated with the recall error of the third presented bar (r = − 0.59, p < 0.003) than the second (r = − 0.56, p < 0.008), and first bar (r = − 0.57, p < 0.006, Fig. 3A). This pattern was observed for precision only in the third bar at a statistically significant level (3rd: r = 0.7, p < 0.001; 2nd: r = 0.46, p = 0.055; 1st: r = 0.45, p = 0.06, Fig. 3B). The correlation between DMS performance and sources of error is presented in Fig. 3C–E.Fig. 3 Correlation between bar orders in the sequential paradigm vs. delay intervals in DMS. Heatmap of Spearman’s correlation coefficient values between (A) recall error, (B) precision, (C) target, (D) non-target, and (E) uniform proportions, from bars 1 to 3 with checkerboard performance from five distinct delay periods (0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 s). Asterisk shows significant correlation (p < 0.05), while orange shades represent positive and blue shades represent negative correlations.

A separate analog paradigm with one bar stimuli was included to evaluate the correlational relationship with the DMS task to understand whether the observed effects are due to task difficulty. A significant correlation was observed between recall error and precision with the overall performance of the DMS task (r = − 0.56, p < 0.005, r = 0.38, p < 0.05, respectively) which confirms that the effects are not due to task difficulty.

Discussion

The search for a comprehensive model explaining behavioral data from WM tasks has led to the emergence of two prominent schools of thought: the slot-based model and the resource-based model. While each model possesses unique properties capable of explaining various observation patterns in WM assessment, the discrepancies between them have been a subject of debate. Although recent studies have introduced hybrid theories, such as the categorical resource model, which incorporate features from both traditional models, direct correlative assessments have not been clearly implemented to clarify the differences of tasks associated with these theories18,24. Our correlational study aimed to unveil similarities and differences between these two mainstream tasks commonly utilized in the development of the slot and resource models which will be discussed in comparison to available models.

The moderate to high correlation observed between recall error and precision with DMS performance, particularly noticeable in the third bar (the least challenging to memorize due to the shortest delay interval), suggests that when the memory load is lower in the sequential task, the results are more correlated to the less challenging task (i.e., DMS). This is complementary to a study by Zokaei et al., which compared digit span measures with a precision task and found significant correlations between performance in backward digit span (a more difficult slot-based model task) and precision in a resource model task25. In addition, our study showed the correlation pattern between these two tasks with higher temporal resolutions in DMS (from 0.5 to 8 s) and sequential tasks (1–3 bars). These analyses showed no significant correlation in the specific delay periods (Fig. 3, explained below), emphasizing the importance of considering the full range of delay intervals.

The absence of a significant correlation between uniform proportion and performance in the DMS task suggests that binary paradigms cannot be used to study this type of error. The three-component Mixture Model, introduced by Bays et al., categorizes error patterns into target, non-target, and uniform error (proportion). However, with the incorporation of the neural resource model (Stochastic sampling), the uniform error seems less relevant26,27.

The variation of correlation significance observed in our work is also in line with a 2020 comparative analysis evaluating three visual WM tasks with distinct properties involving different types of stimuli and presentation formats. This analysis critiqued the relevance of three prominent models (pure slot model, pure resource mode, and hybrid models) in explaining WM capacity21. While the slot-based model lacks the capacity to represent variability in memory resolution, continuous resource models assume internal and external noise according to signal detection theory. Although their findings supported the pure resource model, regardless of task type, the joint model analysis showed performance in two tasks cannot be described with a single estimate of capacity or resource; the best-fit model varies depending on simultaneous or sequential stimuli presentation. Resource distribution for information encoding and maintenance depends on information content and encoding conditions. Studies supportive of the discrete slot model have often overlooked base rate manipulation, set size variations (i.e., number of items asked to be memorized) and response bias (tendency to endorse a specific response). Therefore, the observed variability in correlation coefficients in specific delay intervals with recall error and precision could be attributed to different experimental settings in our study.

Another example of variation in model fitting includes a study that compared the variable precision model in comparison to hybrid models such as the slot-averaging, slot resource and equal precision models to see which best fits the data from a change detection task28. The results showed the best fit for the variable precision; with improved fits also seen for the slot-averaging and slot-resource models compared to the infinite precision item limit model and the equal precision model. Despite the variable precision model’s inability to distinguish between random guessing and low-precision memory recall, another study found notable results. The study used a whole report memory task, where participants had to recall all items from each trial. Under high memory load conditions, a large proportion of participant responses were guesses29. When participants were free to report the items in their preferred order, a decline in memory performance was seen after the third item due to uniform error distribution caused by guessing and not low-precision representations. These results support the theory that WM has a limited number of slots for information storage suggesting that memory precision and capacity may be distinct aspects of WM.

According to a review by Bays et al., the slot versus resource model debate has evolved significantly. The simple primary version of the slot model has been abandoned and replaced by versions that account for the noisy nature of visual data encoding and the impact of memory load on memory functionality30. They conclude that the inclusion of continuous variations in slot-based models and specific assumptions of complete memory failure is excessive, sparking new discussions, especially when participants are incentivized to remember items. Improved precision when rewards are included explain variation in performance using the resource-rational theory30,31. The drop in performance is perhaps not cost effective due to neural spiking which is a new take on how limited resources of memory are distributed.

To avoid any potential confound, our inclusion criteria were limited to individuals younger than 40 years old32,33. However, this study had limitations which could be addressed by conducting future EEG and functional MRI studies, along with behavioral paradigms, to distinguish between different models and pathways involved. In addition, data simulation based on the slot and resource models in comparison to experimental findings could also give a clearer outlook on classical approaches. Additionally, future work could focus on implementing model-based predictions to provide a clearer understanding of how the slot model and resource model specifically apply to the tasks used in similar studies. By doing so, we can better elucidate the theoretical implications and validate the predictions derived from each model. To enhance the understanding of task-specific model associations, future studies should incorporate tasks with a diverse array of settings to assess their effects. For instance, previous research has shown that the correlation between array change-detection tasks and multi-change detection tasks with different span measures was only evident when the multi-change detection tasks involved a greater number of items than the capacity limit. This correlation was specifically observed in experiments with a 7-item array, rather than a 5-item array. By implementing changes to task arrays as well as reward implementations to assess the effects of incentivization on memory performance in future research, we can expect to obtain more robust findings30,34.

In conclusion, our study revealed a significant correlation between the DMS and analog recall paradigms, determining that the DMS tasks are not necessarily less capable of estimating WM capacity. Our results can serve as a confirmatory approach when dealing with larger sample sizes and limited time, allowing reliance on classical approaches which are easier to access and perform. For example, when assessing disease progression and cognitive function in patients who suffer from conditions that cause cognitive impairments such as Alzheimer’s, dementia or multiple sclerosis, affecting WM, we can use a simpler DMS task that is easier to use in practice, compared to a more time-consuming one (analog recall) to achieve similar results.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Grant number: 2400104).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: F.H, A.M, I.A, M.S. Paradigms development: A.M, M.S. Data acquisition: A.M, A.A. Statistical analysis: F.H, A.M, M.S. Data interpretation: F.H, A.M, I.A, M.S. Drafting original manuscript: F.H. Revising the manuscript: All authors. Funding acquisition: I.A. All the authors have read and approved the final version for publication.

Data availability

Anonymized data will be available upon request from corresponding author. The corresponding author will provide the data with respect to the data-sharing policy in the protocol and ethical approval of the study.

Code availability

The source codes for the analog report MATLAB toolbox are available at https://www.paulbays.com/toolbox/.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics

This study followed the latest update of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Iranian National Committee of Ethics in Biomedical Research (Approval ID: IR.MUI.MED.REC.1400.441).

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Fatemeh Hojjati and Ali Motahharynia.
==== Refs
References

1. Cowan N Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2014 26 2 197 223 10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y 25346585
Cowan, N. Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26(2), 197–223 (2014).25346585 10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y
2. Baddeley A Working memory Science. 1992 255 5044 556 559 10.1126/science.1736359 1736359
Baddeley, A. Working memory. Science. 255(5044), 556–559 (1992).1736359 10.1126/science.1736359
3. Miller GA The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information Psychol. Rev. 1956 63 2 81 97 10.1037/h0043158 13310704
Miller, G. A. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 81–97 (1956).13310704 10.1037/h0043158
4. Cowan N The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity Behav. Brain Sci. 2001 24 1 87 114 10.1017/S0140525X01003922 11515286
Cowan, N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav. Brain Sci. 24(1), 87–114 (2001).11515286 10.1017/S0140525X01003922
5. Rouder JN Morey RD Cowan N Zwilling CE Morey CC Pratte MS An assessment of fixed-capacity models of visual working memory Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2008 105 16 5975 5979 10.1073/pnas.0711295105 18420818
Rouder, J. N. et al. An assessment of fixed-capacity models of visual working memory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 105(16), 5975–5979 (2008).18420818 10.1073/pnas.0711295105
6. Luck SJ Vogel EK Visual working memory capacity: From psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences Trends Cogn. Sci. 2013 17 8 391 400 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.006 23850263
Luck, S. J. & Vogel, E. K. Visual working memory capacity: From psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17(8), 391–400 (2013).23850263 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.006
7. Engle RW Tuholski SW Laughlin JE Conway ARA Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1999 128 3 309 331 10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 10513398
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E. & Conway, A. R. A. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 128(3), 309–331 (1999).10513398 10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309
8. Phillips WA On the distinction between sensory storage and visual short-term memory Percept. Psychophys. 1974 16 283 290 10.3758/BF03203943
Phillips, W. A. On the distinction between sensory storage and visual short-term memory. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 283–290 (1974).10.3758/BF03203943
9. Luck SJ Vogel EK The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions Nature. 1997 390 6657 279 281 10.1038/36846 9384378
Luck, S. J. & Vogel, E. K. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature. 390(6657), 279–281 (1997).9384378 10.1038/36846
10. Chai, W.J., A.H. AI, Abdullah, J.M. Working memory from the psychological and neurosciences perspectives: A review. Front. Psychol. 9, 401 (2018).
11. Brady TF Konkle T Alvarez GA A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and toward structured representations J. Vis. 2011 11 5 4 10.1167/11.5.4 21617025
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T. & Alvarez, G. A. A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and toward structured representations. J. Vis. 11(5), 4 (2011).21617025 10.1167/11.5.4
12. Bays PM Catalao RFG Husain M The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource J. Vision. 2009 9 10 7 10.1167/9.10.7
Bays, P. M., Catalao, R. F. G. & Husain, M. The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. J. Vision. 9(10), 7 (2009).10.1167/9.10.7
13. Zhang W Luck SJ Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory Nature. 2008 453 7192 233 235 10.1038/nature06860 18385672
Zhang, W. & Luck, S. J. Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature. 453(7192), 233–235 (2008).18385672 10.1038/nature06860
14. Ma WJ Husain M Bays PM Changing concepts of working memory Nat. Neurosci. 2014 17 3 347 356 10.1038/nn.3655 24569831
Ma, W. J., Husain, M. & Bays, P. M. Changing concepts of working memory. Nat. Neurosci. 17(3), 347–356 (2014).24569831 10.1038/nn.3655
15. Schurgin MW Wixted JT Brady TF Psychophysical scaling reveals a unified theory of visual memory strength Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020 4 11 1156 1172 10.1038/s41562-020-00938-0 32895546
Schurgin, M. W., Wixted, J. T. & Brady, T. F. Psychophysical scaling reveals a unified theory of visual memory strength. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4(11), 1156–1172 (2020).32895546 10.1038/s41562-020-00938-0
16. Fougnie D Asplund CL Marois R What are the units of storage in visual working memory? J. Vis. 2010 10 12 27 10.1167/10.12.27 21047759
Fougnie, D., Asplund, C. L. & Marois, R. What are the units of storage in visual working memory?. J. Vis. 10(12), 27 (2010).21047759 10.1167/10.12.27
17. Pratte MS Park YE Rademaker RL Tong F Accounting for stimulus-specific variation in precision reveals a discrete capacity limit in visual working memory J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2017 43 1 6 17 10.1037/xhp0000302 28004957
Pratte, M. S., Park, Y. E., Rademaker, R. L. & Tong, F. Accounting for stimulus-specific variation in precision reveals a discrete capacity limit in visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43(1), 6–17 (2017).28004957 10.1037/xhp0000302
18. Zhou C Lorist MM Mathôt S Categorical bias as a crucial parameter in visual working memory: The effect of memory load and retention interval Cortex. 2022 154 311 321 10.1016/j.cortex.2022.05.007 35839573
Zhou, C., Lorist, M. M. & Mathôt, S. Categorical bias as a crucial parameter in visual working memory: The effect of memory load and retention interval. Cortex. 154, 311–321 (2022).35839573 10.1016/j.cortex.2022.05.007
19. Nie Q-Y Müller HJ Conci M Hierarchical organization in visual working memory: From global ensemble to individual object structure Cognition. 2017 159 85 96 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.11.009 27914301
Nie, Q.-Y., Müller, H. J. & Conci, M. Hierarchical organization in visual working memory: From global ensemble to individual object structure. Cognition. 159, 85–96 (2017).27914301 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.11.009
20. Balaban H Luria R The number of objects determines visual working memory capacity allocation for complex items NeuroImage. 2015 119 54 62 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.051 26119024
Balaban, H. & Luria, R. The number of objects determines visual working memory capacity allocation for complex items. NeuroImage. 119, 54–62 (2015).26119024 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.051
21. Robinson MM Benjamin AS Irwin DE Is there a K in capacity? Assessing the structure of visual short-term memory Cogn. Psychol. 2020 121 101305 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101305 32531272
Robinson, M. M., Benjamin, A. S. & Irwin, D. E. Is there a K in capacity? Assessing the structure of visual short-term memory. Cogn. Psychol. 121, 101305 (2020).32531272 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101305
22. Pelli DG The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies Spatial Vision. 1997 10 4 437 442 10.1163/156856897X00366 9176953
Pelli, D. G. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision. 10(4), 437–442 (1997).9176953 10.1163/156856897X00366
23. Faul F Erdfelder E Lang A-G Buchner A G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences Behav. Res. Methods. 2007 39 2 175 191 10.3758/BF03193146 17695343
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods. 39(2), 175–191 (2007).17695343 10.3758/BF03193146
24. Hardman KO Vergauwe E Ricker TJ Categorical working memory representations are used in delayed estimation of continuous colors J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2017 43 1 30 54 10.1037/xhp0000290 27797548
Hardman, K. O., Vergauwe, E. & Ricker, T. J. Categorical working memory representations are used in delayed estimation of continuous colors. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43(1), 30–54 (2017).27797548 10.1037/xhp0000290
25. Zokaei, N., Burnett Heyes, S., Gorgoraptis, N., Budhdeo, S. & Husain, M. Working memory recall precision is a more sensitive index than span. J. Neuropsychol. 9, 319–329 (2014)
26. McMaster JMV Tomić I Schneegans S Bays PM Swap errors in visual working memory are fully explained by cue-feature variability Cognit. Psychol. 2022 137 101493 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101493 35777189
McMaster, J. M. V., Tomić, I., Schneegans, S. & Bays, P. M. Swap errors in visual working memory are fully explained by cue-feature variability. Cognit. Psychol. 137, 101493 (2022).35777189 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101493
27. Schneegans S Bays PM Neural architecture for feature binding in visual working memory J. Neurosci. 2017 37 14 3913 3925 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3493-16.2017 28270569
Schneegans, S. & Bays, P. M. Neural architecture for feature binding in visual working memory. J. Neurosci. 37(14), 3913–3925 (2017).28270569 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3493-16.2017
28. Keshvari S van den Berg R Ma WJ No evidence for an item limit in change detection PLoS Comput. Biol. 2013 9 2 e1002927 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002927 23468613
Keshvari, S., van den Berg, R. & Ma, W. J. No evidence for an item limit in change detection. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9(2), e1002927 (2013).23468613 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002927
29. Adam KCS Vogel EK Awh E Clear evidence for item limits in visual working memory Cogn. Psychol. 2017 97 79 97 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.07.001 28734172
Adam, K. C. S., Vogel, E. K. & Awh, E. Clear evidence for item limits in visual working memory. Cogn. Psychol. 97, 79–97 (2017).28734172 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.07.001
30. Bays PM Schneegans S Ma WJ Brady TF Representation and computation in visual working memory Nat. Hum. Behav. 2024 8 6 1016 1034 10.1038/s41562-024-01871-2 38849647
Bays, P. M., Schneegans, S., Ma, W. J. & Brady, T. F. Representation and computation in visual working memory. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8(6), 1016–1034 (2024).38849647 10.1038/s41562-024-01871-2
31. van den Berg R Ma WJ A resource-rational theory of set size effects in human visual working memory eLife. 2018 7 e34963 10.7554/eLife.34963 30084356
van den Berg, R. & Ma, W. J. A resource-rational theory of set size effects in human visual working memory. eLife. 7, e34963 (2018).30084356 10.7554/eLife.34963
32. Han S Lee JY Cho SI Oh DJ Yoon DH Risk factors for various cognitive function decline trajectories in adults over 40 years of age: A retrospective cohort study Psychiatry Investig. 2023 20 4 293 300 10.30773/pi.2022.0188 37005386
Han, S., Lee, J. Y., Cho, S. I., Oh, D. J. & Yoon, D. H. Risk factors for various cognitive function decline trajectories in adults over 40 years of age: A retrospective cohort study. Psychiatry Investig. 20(4), 293–300 (2023).37005386 10.30773/pi.2022.0188
33. Esfahan, S.M., Nili, M.-H.H.K., Hatami, J., Sanayei, M. & Rezayat, E. Aging decreases the precision of visual working memory. Aging Neuropsychol. Cognit. 31, 762–776 (2023).
34. Cowan N Hardman K Saults JS Blume CL Clark KM Sunday MA Detection of the number of changes in a display in working memory J. Exp. Psychol. Learn Mem. Cogn. 2016 42 2 169 185 10.1037/xlm0000163 26375783
Cowan, N. et al. Detection of the number of changes in a display in working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn Mem. Cogn. 42(2), 169–185 (2016).26375783 10.1037/xlm0000163
