1. Sensory Memory Iconic Memory Echoic Memory

2. Iconic Memory What is the evidence? Subjective experience Objective measurements Judge duration of a light Interference Sperling’s (1960) work capacity decay (forgetting)

3. Iconic Memory What is the evidence? Subjective experience – flash demo

5. Iconic Memory What is the evidence? Objective measurements Judge duration of a light Interference Sperling’s (1960) work capacity decay (forgetting)

6. Objective measurements judge duration of a light Simple task: When light comes on, press button When the light goes off, press button

7. time milliseconds (ms) 0 Light ON

8. time milliseconds (ms) Button pressed 0 200 Light ON

9. time milliseconds (ms) Button pressed 0 200 600 Light ON Light OFF

10. time milliseconds (ms) Button pressed 0 200 600 1000 Light ON Light OFF Button pressed

11. time milliseconds (ms) Button pressed 0 200 600 1000 Light ON Light OFF Button pressed

12. Objective measurements judge duration of a light participant thinks light is ON longer than it actually is and a measurement can be obtained

13. Iconic Memory What is the evidence? Objective measurements Judge duration of a light Interference Sperling’s (1960) work capacity decay (forgetting)

14. demos Ref to Demos (labs)

16. N

18. &

19. E

21. C

22. &

24. Demo 1 Interference basic effect is that performance decreases Proactive interference (&, letter) interference comes before the stimulus in this paradigm called a forward mask Retroactive interference (letter, &) interference comes after the stimulus in this paradigm called a backward mask

25. How does the interference actually work? Integration F the stimulus and the interference become enmeshed (integrated) - could occur w/ proactive or retroactive interference &

26. How does the interference actually work? Integration F the stimulus and the interference become enmeshed (integrated) - could occur w/ proactive or retroactive interference Interruption processing of stimulus gets stopped when processing of interfering material begins - could occur for retroactive interference (but not proactive interference) &

27. Demo 2 -- Sperling’s (1960) work Present stimulus array (matrix of letters) briefly (e.g., 50 ms)

29. F L N G D S V K R M E C

31. Sperling’s (1960) work Present stimulus array (matrix of letters) briefly (e.g., 50 ms) Task Report all of the letters—called whole report participants do okay but not very good

32. Sperling’s (1960) work Present stimulus array (matrix of letters) briefly Task Report all of the letters—called whole report participants not very good Report one row of the letters—called partial report cued by a tone (high, middle, low) then estimate number of letters that can be retrieved

33. Sperling’s (1960) work Span of apprehension Number of items that could be retrieved Whole report – 4.5 letters

34. Sperling’s (1960) work Span of apprehension Number of items that could be retrieved Whole report – 4.5 letters Partial report – 3.03 x 3 rows = 9.1 letters

35. Sperling’s (1960) work Span of apprehension Whole report – 4.5 letters Partial report – 9.1 letters Higher estimate for partial report than whole report Why?

36. Sperling’s (1960) work Span of apprehension Whole report – 4.5 letters Partial report – 9.1 letters Higher estimate for partial report than whole report Why? Fast Forgetting (decay of icon)?

37. Sperling’s (1960) work Partial report delay report of row (w/ delayed cue) track performance as a function of delay (retention interval)

38. F L N G D S V K R M E C

39. F L N G D S V K R M E C Partial report with different delays for the tones

40. Probability of Report as Function of Time P(r) 1.0 0.0 Time (s) 0 1

41. Probability of Report as Function of Time P(r) 1.0 0.0 Time (s) 0 1 9.1 items 4.5 items

42. Probability of Report as Function of Time P(r) 1.0 0.0 Time (s) 0 1 9.1 items 4.5 items (same as measure from whole report)

43. Conclusion: Image or icon decays very quickly

44. Different partial report procedure (Averbach & Coriell, 1961) Use a visual marker as a cue to report a single letter from a matrix

45. Different partial report procedure (Averbach & Coriell, 1961) Use a visual marker as a cue to report a single letter from a matrix X P N V B W D L F Y C T Q H Z G

47. X P N V B W D L F Y C T Q H Z G

50. X P N V B W D L F Y C T Q H Z G

52. Performance with bar cue ( ) much better than that with the circle cue ( ). Why?

53. Performance with bar cue ( ) much better than that with the circle cue ( ). Why? Circle cue acted as a backward mask —metacontrast mask (which produced a metacontrast effect). Evidence for integration vs. interruption ideas?

54. Iconic Memory What is the evidence? Subjective experience Objective measurements Judge duration of a light Interference Sperling’s (1960) work measured capacity decay (forgetting)

55. Have a good day!