An official website of the United States government
Visual working memory is traditionally studied using abstract, meaningless stimuli. Although studies using such simplified stimuli have been insightful in understanding the mechanisms of visual working memory, they also potentially limit our ability to understand how people encode and store conceptually rich and meaningful stimuli in the real world. Recent studies have demonstrated that meaningful and familiar visual stimuli that connect to existing knowledge are better remembered than abstract colors or shapes, indicating that meaning can unlock additional working memory capacity. These findings challenge current models of visual working memory and suggest that its capacity is not fixed but depends on the type of information that is being remembered and, in particular, how that information connects to preexisting knowledge.
more »
« less
Strategy-dependent effects of working-memory limitations on human perceptual decision-making
Working memory, the brain’s ability to temporarily store and recall information, is a critical part of decision making – but it has its limits. The brain can only store so much information, for so long. Since decisions are not often acted on immediately, information held in working memory ‘degrades’ over time. However, it is unknown whether or not this degradation of information over time affects the accuracy of later decisions. The tactics that people use, knowingly or otherwise, to store information in working memory also remain unclear. Do people store pieces of information such as numbers, objects and particular details? Or do they tend to compute that information, make some preliminary judgement and recall their verdict later? Does the strategy chosen impact people’s decision-making? To investigate, Schapiro et al. devised a series of experiments to test whether the limitations of working memory, and how people store information, affect the accuracy of decisions they make. First, participants were shown an array of colored discs on a screen. Then, either immediately after seeing the disks or a few seconds later, the participants were asked to recall the position of one of the disks they had seen, or the average position of all the disks. This measured how much information degraded for a decision based on multiple items, and how much for a decision based on a single item. From this, the method of information storage used to make a decision could be inferred. Schapiro et al. found that the accuracy of people’s responses worsened over time, whether they remembered the position of each individual disk, or computed their average location before responding. The greater the delay between seeing the disks and reporting their location, the less accurate people’s responses tended to be. Similarly, the more disks a participant saw, the less accurate their response became. This suggests that however people store information, if working memory reaches capacity, decision-making suffers and that, over time, stored information decays. Schapiro et al. also noticed that participants remembered location information in different ways depending on the task and how many disks they were shown at once. This suggests people adopt different strategies to retain information momentarily. In summary, these findings help to explain how people process and store information to make decisions and how the limitations of working memory impact their decision-making ability. A better understanding of how people use working memory to make decisions may also shed light on situations or brain conditions where decision-making is impaired.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1853630
- PAR ID:
- 10375766
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- eLife
- Volume:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 2050-084X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Worthy, Darrell A. (Ed.)When making decisions involving risk, people may learn about the risk from descriptions or from experience. The description-experience gap refers to the difference in decision patterns driven by this discrepancy in learning format. Across two experiments, we investigated whether learning from description versus experience differentially affects the direction and the magnitude of a context effect in risky decision making. In Study 1 and 2, a computerized game called the Decisions about Risk Task (DART) was used to measure people’s risk-taking tendencies toward hazard stimuli that exploded probabilistically. The rate at which a context hazard caused harm was manipulated, while the rate at which a focal hazard caused harm was held constant. The format by which this information was learned was also manipulated; it was learned primarily by experience or by description. The results revealed that participants’ behavior toward the focal hazard varied depending on what they had learned about the context hazard. Specifically, there were contrast effects in which participants were more likely to choose a risky behavior toward the focal hazard when the harm rate posed by the context hazard was high rather than low. Critically, these contrast effects were of similar strength irrespective of whether the risk information was learned from experience or description. Participants’ verbal assessments of risk likelihood also showed contrast effects, irrespective of learning format. Although risk information about a context hazard in DART does nothing to affect the objective expected value of risky versus safe behaviors toward focal hazards, it did affect participants’ perceptions and behaviors—regardless of whether the information was learned from description or experience. Our findings suggest that context has a broad-based role in how people assess and make decisions about hazards.more » « less
-
When people receive advice while making difficult decisions, they often make better decisions in the moment and also increase their knowledge in the process. However, such incidental learning can only occur when people cognitively engage with the information they receive and process this information thoughtfully. How do people process the information and advice they receive from AI, and do they engage with it deeply enough to enable learning? To answer these questions, we conducted three experiments in which individuals were asked to make nutritional decisions and received simulated AI recommendations and explanations. In the first experiment, we found that when people were presented with both a recommendation and an explanation before making their choice, they made better decisions than they did when they received no such help, but they did not learn. In the second experiment, participants first made their own choice, and only then saw a recommendation and an explanation from AI; this condition also resulted in improved decisions, but no learning. However, in our third experiment, participants were presented with just an AI explanation but no recommendation and had to arrive at their own decision. This condition led to both more accurate decisions and learning gains. We hypothesize that learning gains in this condition were due to deeper engagement with explanations needed to arrive at the decisions. This work provides some of the most direct evidence to date that it may not be sufficient to provide people with AI-generated recommendations and explanations to ensure that people engage carefully with the AI-provided information. This work also presents one technique that enables incidental learning and, by implication, can help people process AI recommendations and explanations more carefully.more » « less
-
Abstract Changing how an issue is framed can influence both decision-making and metacognition, but framing a memory task in terms of gains and losses could also impact how learners prioritize information according to its value or importance. We investigated how framing task instructions and feedback in terms of gains and losses influences learners’ ability to selectively remember valuable information at the expense of low-value information. Specifically, we presented learners with to-be-remembered words paired with point values and either told participants how many points they scored (the sum of the values of recalled words) or lost (the sum of the values of not-recalled words) on each list, with participants’ goal being to maximize their scores or minimize their losses, respectively. Overall, participants were more selective for high-value words when their goals were framed in terms of point gains compared with when their goals were framed in terms of losses, and learners’ metacognitive predictions of performance (JOLs) generally mapped onto this trend. Thus, framing in terms of losses for forgetting can reduce memory selectivity, perhaps because even small losses are salient, indicating that framing effects are not limited to decision-making but can influence memory and metacognitive processes as well.more » « less
-
Visual short-term memory (VSTM) is an essential store that creates continuous representations from disjointed visual input. However, severe capacity limits exist, reflecting constraints in supporting brain networks. VSTM performance shows spatial biases predicted by asymmetries in the brain based upon the location of the remembered object. Visual representations are retinotopic, or relative to location of the representation on the retina. It therefore stands to reason that memory performance may also show retinotopic biases. Here, eye position was manipulated to tease apart retinotopic coordinates from spatiotopic coordinates, or location relative to the external world. Memory performance was measured while participants performed a color change-detection task for items presented across the visual field while subjects fixated central or peripheral position. VSTM biases reflected the location of the stimulus on the retina, regardless of where the stimulus appeared on the screen. Therefore, spatial biases occur in retinotopic coordinates in VSTMand suggest a fundamental link between behavioral VSTM measures and visual representations.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73610
