Abstract
The partial report tachistoscopic task has been used to define “iconic memory,” a labile image-like precategorical visual store. Six interrelated partial report studies are reported that challenge the construct. On each trial, subjects were shown an eight-letter pseudoword (representing one of four orders of approximation to English) and a bar probe indicating which letter to report. The probe was delayed systematically, and the experiments included both mask and no-mask conditions. All three variables-familiarity of the material, masking, and delay of the probe-affected accuracy of report. Delaying the probe, for example, reduced accuracy by increasing location errors. Delaying the mask increased accuracy by reducing both location and item errors, but it did not reduce the location errors until its effect on item errors had reached asymptote. Across the stimulus array, however, masking reduced accuracy at all delays by increasing location errors. Finally, the greater accuracy associated with higher orders of approximation to English was complemented by a decrease in item errors, but the familiarity factor had no effect on location errors. Taken together, even though the task has been used to define the idea, the results indicate that the bar-probe task cannot be explained in terms of a simple iconic memory concept. Instead of a simple image-like buffer, the explanation requires a feature buffer, an “intelligent” letter identification process, and a postidentification character buffer. Iconic memory is a construct that oversimplifies the information processing system used in the bar-probe task.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Note
Mewhort, D. J. K., & Marchetti, F. M.Incidental learning during partial report tasks: An analysis of word identification and depth of processing. Unpublished manuscript, 1980.
References
Averbach, E., &Coriell, A. S. Short-term memory in vision.Bell System Technical Journal, 1961,40, 309–328.
Bjork, E. L., &Murray, J. T. On the nature of input channels in visual processing.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 472–484.
Breitmeyer, B. G. Unmasking visual masking: A look at the “why” behind the veil of the “how”,Psychological Review, 1980,87, 52–69.
Bryden, M. P. A model for the sequential organization of behaviour.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1967,21, 37–56.
Butler, B. Selective attention and stimulus localization in visual perception.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1980,34, 119–133.
Campbell, A. J.Mechanisms of letter and word identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University at Kingston, 1979.
Campbell, A. J., &Mewhort, D. J. K. On familiarity effects in visual information processing.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1980,34, 134–154.
Coltheart, M. Iconic memory and visible persistence.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,27, 183–228.
Davidson, M. L., Fox, M., &Dick, A. O. Effect of eye movements on backward masking and perceived location.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 110–116.
Dick, A. O. Relations between the sensory register and short-term storage in tachistoscopic recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,82, 279–284.
Dick, A. O. Iconic memory and its relation to perceptual processing and other memory mechanisms.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,16, 575–596.
Di Lollo, V. On the spatio-temporal interactions of brief visual displays. In R. H. Day & G. V. Stanley (Eds.),Studies in perception. Perth: University of Western Australia Press, 1977.
Francolini, C. M., &Egeth, H. E. On the nonautomaticity of “automatic” activation: Evidence of selective seeing.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,27, 331–342.
Garner, W. R.Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley, 1962.
Hanson, A. R., Riseman, E. M., &Fisher, E. Context in word recognition.Pattern Recognition, 1976,8, 35–45.
Hirata, K., &Bryden, M. P. Tables of letter sequences varying in order of approximation to English.Psychonomic Science, 1971,25, 322–324.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension.Psychological Review, 1980,87, 329–354.
Lindsay, P. H., &Norman, D. A.Human information processing (2nd. ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Massaro, D. W., &Klitzke, D. The role of lateral masking and orthographic structure in letter and word recognition.Acta Psychologica, 1979,43, 413–426.
Mayzner, M. S., &Tresselt, M. E. Tables of single-letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinations.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1965,1(2, Whole No. 2), 13–32.
McConkie, G. W., &Zola, D. Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading?Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,25, 221–224.
Merikle, P. M., &Glick, M. J. Processing order in visual perception.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976,28, 17–26.
Mewhort, D. J. K. Accuracy and order of report in tachistoscopic identification.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1974,28, 383–398.
Mewhort, D. J. K. DIS: An n-channel tachistoscope algorithm.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1978,10, 756–760.
Mewhort, D. J. K., &Beal, A. L. Mechanisms of word identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977,3, 629–640.
Mewhort, D. J. K., &Campbell, A. J. Processing spatial information and the selective-masking effect.Perception & Psychophysics, 1978,24, 93–101.
Mewhort, D. J. K., &Campbell, A. J. The rate of word integration and the overprinting paradigm.Memory & Cognition, 1980,8, 15–25.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Newell, A. You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.),Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Posner, M. I., Boies, S. J., Eichelman, W. H., & Taylor, R. L. Retention of visual and name codes of single letters.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 1969,79(1, Pt. 2).
Rayner, K., McConkie, G. W., &Zola, D. Integrating information across eye movements.Cognitive Psychology, 1980,12, 206–226.
Rumelhart, D. E. A multicomponent theory of the perception of briefly exposed visual displays.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1970,7, 191–218.
Santee, Z. L., &Egeth, H. E. Interference in letter identification: A test of feature-specific inhibition.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,27, 321–330.
Smith, E. E., &Spoehr, K. T. The perception of printed English: A theoretical perspective. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1974.
Townsend, V. M.The information lost following a tachistoscopic exposure. Unpublished master’s thesis, Queen’s University at Kingston, 1970.
Towsend, V. M. Loss of spatial and identity information following a tachistoscopic exposure.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,98, 113–118.
Treisman, A. M., &Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology, 1980,12, 97–136.
Venezky, R. L.The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton, 1970.
Wolford, G. Perturbation model for letter identification.Psychological Review, 1975,82, 184–199.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research was supported by grants to D. J. K. Mewhort from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada (A0318) and from the Advisory Research Council, School of Graduate Studies and Research, Queen’s University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mewhort, D.J.K., Campbell, A.J., Marchetti, F.M. et al. Identification, localization, and “iconic memory”: An evaluation of the bar-probe task. Memory & Cognition 9, 50–67 (1981). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196951
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196951