Visual representation is one of the most important topics in sensory memory. Traditionally, visual representation with respect to sensory memory was regarded as an ‘icon’, the processing of which would cease after a subsequent stimulus (backward masking). Recently, an increasing number of researches have suggested a more flexible representation of visual sensory memory in which the features of the visual stimulus could be expressed in an abstract form. As previous researchers paid considerable attention to only the schematic features of a visual stimulus, the abstract information contained in a stimulus has rarely been explored. In this study, we have focused on the semantic information of the visual representation of the sensory memory. In a part-report task, the Arabic digits were employed as the target, and the Chinese digits as the semantic-similar mask, which were semantically related to Arabic digits; the noise patterns were employed as the non-semantic mask. If under the Chinese mask condition, the participants’ performance of reporting target digits decreased, it would reveal a conflict between the representations of the target and the mask, thereby suggesting that the visual representation of the sensory memory contains semantic information of the stimulus.
In Experiment 1, the target stimuli were arrays of 3×4 Arabic digits generated by selecting at random from a set containing digits zero to nine. A mask stimuli could either be (a) a single binary visual noise with an element size equal to the stroke width of the target digits, or (b) a 3×4 array of random standard Chinese-digits in capital form whose spatial arrangement is identical to that of the target and its size is big enough to overlap the corresponding target digits. Both the targets and masks were presented within 23.5 ms (2 frames in 85 Hz) and the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) between the offset of the target and the onset of the mask was 105.9 ms (9 frames in 85 Hz). There were three conditions for reporting: part-report with 0 ms cue-delay, part-report with 447 ms cue-delay, and whole-report with no cue-delay. A correct response was recorded only when the participants reported the correct digits at the locations they occurred in the target array. The results showed a significant difference between the noise and standard Chinese-digit mask under all of the three reporting conditions; there was a significant part-report advantage for the noise mask, but not for the Chinese characters. This indicated that semantic information can influence information processing in the sensory memory. Considering that noise and Chinese characters are different at a schematic level, we inverted the Chinese digits in Experiment 2 to destroy their semantic information but reserve their schematic feature.
Therefore, Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1, except the Chinese digits were inverted. The results showed that the difference between the noise and inverted Chinese-digit masks still existed, while both showed significant part-report advantages. We conducted an analysis across-experiment afterwards. There was a significant difference between the standard and inverted Chinese-digit masks, while there was no significant difference between the noise masks across the two experiments. Results above revealed that masks with different semantic information but the same schematic information can influence the target processing differently. Considering that the standard and inverted Chinese digits are different in semantic strength, we employed commonly used Chinese characters in Experiment 3 to ensure that the two masks under comparison have different meanings but a similar semantic strength.
In Experiment 3, we employed Chinese digits and commonly used Chinese characters as masks. These two masks had similar word frequencies and number of strokes. However, the Chinese-digit mask still showed a significant stronger masking effect, which revealed the effect of semantic similarity. This implied that the visual representation in sensory memory could contain semantic information.
In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that the feature represented in sensory memory is not only schematic but also semantic. The functions of such a feature-based representation and its interaction with the icon have also been discussed.
Coltheart M., Laming D. R. J., Routh D. A., & Broadbent D. E . ( 1983). Iconic memory [and discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.302( 1110), 283-294.
Dick A.O . ( 1974). Iconic memory and its relation to perceptual processing and other memory mechanisms. Perception & Psychophysics.16( 3), 575-596.
Enns J.T., & Di Lollo V. , ( 2000). What’s new in visual masking? Trends in Cognitive Sciences.4( 9), 345-352.
Federmeier K.D., & Kutas M. , ( 1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language.41( 4), 469-195.
Gegenfurtner K.R., & Sperling , ( 1993). Information transfer in iconic memory experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.19( 4), 845-866.
Haber R.N . ( 1983). The impending demise of the icon: A critique of the concept of iconic storage in visual information processing. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.6( 1), 1-54.
Jeffreys H. .( 1998). Theory of probability (3rd ed.).Oxford classic texts in the physical sciences. Oxford Oxfordshire, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
Kao C-H., Chen D-Y., & Chen C-C . ( 2010). The inversion effect in visual word form processing. Cortex.46( 2), 217-230.
Luck S.J., & Vogel ,E.K . ( 1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjuctions. Nature.390( 6657), 279-281.
Marr D (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York, Oxford: Freeman.
Modern Chinese frequency dictionary (in Chinese).(1986). Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press.
[现代汉语频率词典.(1986). 北京: 北京语言学院出版社]
Neisser U. ( 1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.
Neri P., Luu J. Y.,& Levi D. M . ( 2006). Meaningful interactions can enhance visual discrimination of human agents. Nature Neuroscience.9( 9), 1186-1192.
??men H, & Herzog, M.H . ( 2016). A new conceptualization of human visual sensory-memory. Frontiers in Psychology.7, 1-15.
Pelli D.G . ( 1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision.10( 4), 437-442.
Perfetti C.A., & Bell L. , ( 1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language.30( 4), 473-485.
Perfetti C.A., & Zhang S. , ( 1991). Phonological processes in reading Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning.Memory, and Cognition.17( 4), 633-643.
Pinto Y., Sligte I. G., Shapiro K. L ., & Lamme, V. A. F ( 2013). Fragile visual short-term memory is an object-based and location-specific store. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.20( 4), 732-739.
Raymond J. E., Shapiro K. L., & Arnell K. M . ( 1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an rsvp task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.18( 3), 849-860.
Rescorla M . ( 2015). Bayesian perceptual psychology.M. Matthen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of perception (First edition) (pp. 694-716). Oxford, New York NY: Oxford University Press.
Rouder J. N., Speckman P. L., Sun D. C., Morey R. D., & Iverson G . ( 2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.16( 2), 225-237.
Scheerer E. (1973). Integration, interruption and processing rate in visual backward masking. Psychologische Forschung.36( 1), 71-93.
Schlottmann A.& Ray E. , ( 2010). Goal attribution to schematic animals: Do 6-month-olds perceive biological motion as animate? Developmental Science.13( 1), 1-10.
Scholl B. J,& Gao T. .( 2013) Perceiving animacy and intentionality:Visual processing or higher-level judgment MD Rutherford & Valerie A Kuhlmeier (Eds) Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention (pp197-230) Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Visual processing or higher-level judgment. M.D. Rutherford & Valerie A. Kuhlmeier (Eds). Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention (pp.197-230). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Sperling G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied.74( 11), 1-29.
Sperling G. (1963). A model for visual memory tasks. Human Factors.5( 1), 19-31.
Tang N., An W., Xu H. K., Zhou J. F., Gao T., & Shen M. W . ( 2018). From "data" to "representation": How human cognition can inspire artificial intelligence. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology.24( 1), 3-14.
Turvey M.T . ( 1973). On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli. Psychological Review.80( 1), 1-52.
Wahn B.,& K?nig P. , ( 2017). Is attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities task-dependent? Advances in Cognitive Psychology.13( 1), 83-96.
Wolfe J. M., Butcher S. J., Lee C., & Hyle M . ( 2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.29(2), 483-502.
Wu F., Gu Q., Shi Z. H., Gao Z. F., & Shen M. W . ( 2018). Striding over the "classical statistical inference trap": Application of Bayes Factors in psychological studies. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology.24( 3), 195-202.
Yin J.& Csibra G. ,(2015). Concept-based word learning in human infants. Psychological Science.26( 8), 1316-1324.
Zerr P., Gayet S., Mulder K., Pinto Y., Sligte I& .,van der Stigchel S. (2017). Remapping high-capacity, pre-attentive, fragile sensory memory. Scientific Reports.7( 1), 1-10.
Zhou J. F., Xu H. K., Tang N., Shi B. H., Zhao Y., Gao T., & S hen M. W . ( 2016). The “strong-cognition" psychology research: Implication of AlphaGo. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology.22( 1), 3-11.