Cited by 311Visual perception and processing mechanismsCognitive Abilities and TestingMemory Processes and Influences

Factorial comparison of working memory models.

Open access
van den Berg, Ronald, Awh, Edward, Ma, Wei Ji·2014·Psychological Review

Abstract

Three questions have been prominent in the study of visual working memory limitations: (a) What is the nature of mnemonic precision (e.g., quantized or continuous)? (b) How many items are remembered? (c) To what extent do spatial binding errors account for working memory failures? Modeling studies have typically focused on comparing possible answers to a single one of these questions, even though the result of such a comparison might depend on the assumed answers to both others. Here, we consider every possible combination of previously proposed answers to the individual questions. Each model is then a point in a 3-factor model space containing a total of 32 models, of which only 6 have been tested previously. We compare all models on data from 10 delayed-estimation experiments from 6 laboratories (for a total of 164 subjects and 131,452 trials). Consistently across experiments, we find that (a) mnemonic precision is not quantized but continuous and not equal but variable across items and trials; (b) the number of remembered items is likely to be variable across trials, with a mean of 6.4 in the best model (median across subjects); (c) spatial binding errors occur but explain only a small fraction of responses (16.5% at set size 8 in the best model). We find strong evidence against all 6 documented models. Our results demonstrate the value of factorial model comparison in working memory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0035234

Cites

52 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A model recovery analysis was performed to test the ability to distinguish the 6 core models and the 2 stronger versions of the Bayesian model.

    “We performed a model recovery analysis [93] to test our ability to distinguish our 6 core models, as well as the 2 stronger versions of the Bayesian model.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Jeffreys H 1961 The theory of probability 3rd Oxford, England Clarendon Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Berg, R., Awh, E., & Ma, W. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • New York University (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2014
Volume
121
Issue
1
Pages
124-149
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2131353194
Cited by
311
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 13
FWCI
19.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY020958)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-12-1-0262)
  • Sponsor name not included (NIH-R01MH077105)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
visual working memory, working memory models, set size, model spaces
MeSH terms
Attention, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Retention, Psychology, Models, Statistical, Statistical Distributions, Likelihood Functions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review