A major role for visual short-term memory (VSTM) is to mediate perceptual comparisons of visual information across successive glances and brief temporal interruptions. Research that has focused on the comparison process has noted a marked tendency for performance to be better when participants are required to report a difference between the displays rather than report the absence of a difference (i.e. a sameness). We refer to this performance asymmetry as report-difference superiority (RDS). It has been suggested that RDS reflects the operation of a reflexive mechanism that generates a mismatch signal during the comparison of visual input with information maintained in VSTM. This bottom-up mechanism therefore gives evidence for the presence of a feature change but not for the absence of such a change; consequently, a sameness is harder to detect than a difference between two displays. We test this explanation, and determine whether by itself it is a sufficient explanation of the RDS. In a delayed comparison task we find the RDS effect is most prevalent when items retain the same display locations; however, the effect does persist even when compared item locations were scrambled across memory and test arrays. However, with a conjunction task this scrambling of locations was effective in wholly abolishing the RDS effect. We consider that the RDS effect is a consequence of local comparisons of features, as well as global statistical comparisons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
We opted for a task where observers made unspeeded responses to the displays, as is the case in most comparison tasks (e.g. Luck & Vogel, 1997), rather than one that emphasised speed of responding, as Hyun et al. (2009) did. We opted for this because our pilot work in which both speed and accuracy of responding was emphasised produced data that contained differential speed-error trade-offs that made it difficult to validly compare across the conditions.
To give further clarification to the CF manipulation, note that, under report difference instructions, the CF value is effectively a direct reflection of the number of colour changes that occur between memory and test. Under report-sameness instructions, however, the CF value is reversed with respect to this metric. To express the CF value in terms of the number of colour changes one simply needs to subtract the CF value from the number of overall items (i.e. 4). Thus, for example, under report-sameness instructions CF-1, expressed in number of changes is: 4 minus 1 = 3.
This particular interaction should be treated with some caution. Some participants were near or at ceiling in the 3-CF and 4-CF conditions, at least for the report difference trials. This may have inflated the extent of this interaction.
Hyun et al. (2009) also found an interaction between these variables. They took reaction time, rather than accuracy, as the primary measure. They did not find the same pattern that we report with respect to the critical feature variable. However, they do not give enough detail in their paper about if and how accuracy varied across the conditions for us to make any comparison with their results. The demands of the task are also rather different in our task because the items are spatially scrambled on half the trials so it isn’t clear how comparable data would be expected to be in any case.
Aginsky, V., & Tarr, M. J. (2000). How are different properties of a scene encoded in visual memory?. Visual Cognition, 7(1-3), 147-162.
Ariely, D. (2001). Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science, 12(2), 157-162.
Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological science, 22(3), 384-392.
Boduroglu, A., & Shah, P. (2009). Effects of spatial configurations on visual change detection: An account of bias changes. Memory & cognition, 37(8), 1120-1131.
Busch, N. A., Dürschmid, S., & Herrmann, C. S. (2010). ERP effects of change localization, change identification, and change blindness. Neuroreport, 21(5), 371-375.
Chong, S. C., & Treisman, A. (2003). Representation of statistical properties. Vision Research, 43(4), 393-404.
Chong, S. C., & Treisman, A. (2005). Statistical processing: Computing the average size in perceptual groups. Vision research, 45(7), 891-900.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 (1), 87.
Davis, G., & Leow, M. C. (2005). Blindness for unchanging targets in the absence of motion filtering: A response to Theeuwes (2004). Psychological Science, 16(1), 80-82.
Delvenne, J. F., & Dent, K. (2008). Distinctive shapes benefit short-term memory for color associations, but not for color. Perception & psychophysics, 70(6), 1024-1031.
Dubé, C., Zhou, F., Kahana, M. J., & Sekuler, R. (2014). Similarity-based distortion of visual short-term memory is due to perceptual averaging. Vision research, 96, 8-16.
Egeth, H. E. (1966). Parallel versus serial processes in multidimensional stimulus discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 1(4), 245-252.
Farell, B. (1985). " Same"–" different" judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 98(3), 419-456.
Gilchrist, A. L., & Cowan, N. (2014). A two-stage search of visual working memory: Investigating speed in the change-detection paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(7), 2031-2050.
Golomb, J. D., Kupitz, C. N., & Thiemann, C. T. (2014). The influence of object location on identity: A “spatial congruency bias”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2262.
Griffin, I. C., & Nobre, A. C. (2003). Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(8), 1176-1194.
Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2011). Efficient summary statistical representation when change localization fails. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 855.
Heuer, A., & Schubö, A. (2016). Feature-based and spatial attentional selection in visual working memory. Memory & cognition, 44(4), 621-632.
Hollingworth, A. (2006). Visual memory for natural scenes: Evidence from change detection and visual search. Visual cognition, 14(4-8), 781-807.
Hollingworth, A. (2007). Object-position binding in visual memory for natural scenes and object arrays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 31.
Hollingworth, A., & Rasmussen, I. P. (2010). Binding objects to locations: The relationship between object files and visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(3), 543-564.
Huang, L. (2010). Characterizing the nature of visual conscious access: The distinction between features and locations. Journal of Vision, 10(10), 24-24.
Huang, L. (2015). Statistical properties demand as much attention as object features. PloS one, 10(8), e0131191.
Hyun, J. S., Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S. J. (2009). The comparison of visual working memory representations with perceptual inputs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 1140.
Jackson-Nielsen, M., Cohen, M. A., & Pitts, M. A. (2017). Perception of ensemble statistics requires attention. Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 149-160.
Jiang, Y., Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2000). Organization of visual short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 683.
Kong, G., & Fougnie, D. (2019). Visual search within working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. In press.
Kuo, B. C., Rao, A., Lepsien, J., & Nobre, A. C. (2009). Searching for targets within the spatial layout of visual short-term memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(25), 8032-8038.
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279.
Luck, S.J. (2006). Visual short-term memory. In S. J. Luck & A. Hollingworth (Ed.) Visual Memory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection Theory: A User s Guide. 2nd. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New York.
Magen, H. (2017). The role of central attention in retrieval from visual short-term memory. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 24(2), 423-430.
Mangini, M., Villano, M., & Crowell, C. (2010). Visual short term memory for one item. Journal of Vision, 10(7), 620.
Markman, A.B. & Gentner, D. (2000). Structure mapping in the comparison process. American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 501-538.
Maule, J., Witzel, C., & Franklin, A. (2014). Getting the gist of multiple hues: Metric and categorical effects on ensemble perception of hue. JOSA A, 31(4), A93-A102.
Olivers, C. N., & Schreij, D. (2014). Visual memory performance for color depends on spatiotemporal context. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(7), 1873-1884.
Oriet, C., & Brand, J. (2013). Size averaging of irrelevant stimuli cannot be prevented. Vision Research, 79, 8-16.
Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & psychophysics, 44(4), 369-378.
Pertzov, Y., & Husain, M. (2014). The privileged role of location in visual working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(7), 1914-1924.
Phillips, W. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(2), 283-290.
Pilling, M., & Barrett, D. J. (2016). Dimension-based attention in visual short-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 44(5), 740-749.
Pilling, M., & Barrett, D. J. (2018). Change perception and change interference within and across feature dimensions. Acta psychologica, 188, 84-96.
Pilling, M., & Gellatly, A. (2013). Task probability and report of feature information: What you know about what you ‘see’depends on what you expect to need. Acta psychologica, 143(3), 261-268.
Rajsic, J., & Wilson, D. E. (2014). Asymmetrical access to color and location in visual working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(7), 1902-1913.
Rensink, R. A. (2004). Visual sensing without seeing. Psychological Science, 15(1), 27-32.
Rhodes, S., Cowan, N., Hardman, K. O., & Logie, R. H. (2018). Informed guessing in change detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(7), 1023.
Scott-Brown, K. C., Baker, M. R., & Orbach, H. S. (2000). Comparison blindness. Visual cognition, 7(1-3), 253-267.
Simons, D. J. (1996). In sight, out of mind: When object representations fail. Psychological Science, 7(5), 301-305.
Sligte, I. G., Scholte, H. S., & Lamme, V. A. (2008). Are there multiple visual short-term memory stores? PLOS one, 3(2), e1699.
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 31(1), 137-149.
Taylor D. A. (1976) Effect of identity in the multiletter matching task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance. 2(3), 417–428.
Treisman, A., & Zhang, W. (2006). Location and binding in visual working memory. Memory & cognition, 34(8), 1704-1719.
Udale, R., Farrell, S., & Kent, C. (2018). Task demands determine comparison strategy in whole probe change detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(5), 778.
Watanabe, K. (2003). Differential effect of distractor timing on localizing versus identifying visual changes. Cognition, 88(2), 243-257.
Wilson, S., & Goddard, P. A. (2011). The effect of cueing on change blindness and same blindness. Visual Cognition, 19(8), 973-982.
Yin, J., Gao, Z., Jin, X., Ye, L., Shen, M., & Shui, R. (2011). Tracking the mismatch information in visual short term memory: an event-related potential study. Neuroscience letters, 491(1), 26-30.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Pilling, M., Barrett, D.J. & Gellatly, A. The basis of report-difference superiority in delayed perceptual comparison tasks. Mem Cogn 48, 856–869 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01023-7
- Perceptual comparisons
- Visual short-term memory
- Global statistics