The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 6 are not checked yet.
Factorial comparison of working memory models.
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports (2018) · cites this paper as [93]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
2 retracted
Precision in Visual Working Memory Reaches a Stable Plateau When Individual Item Limits Are Exceeded
Anderson, D. E., Vogel, E. K., & Awh, E. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4125-10.2011 · Cited by 151
Self-citationRetractedAnderson, D. E., & Awh, E. (2012) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0292-1 · Cited by 31
Self-citationRetractedA new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Estimating the Dimension of a Model
Schwarz, G. (1978) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136 · Cited by 47,033
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,563
Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 · Cited by 12,558
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Bhaskar, R. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203090732-9 · Cited by 7,765
The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity
Cowan, N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01003922 · Cited by 6,779
The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/36846 · Cited by 4,265
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Jeffreys H 1961 The theory of probability 3rd Oxford, England Clarendon Press
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Changing concepts of working memory
Ma, W. J., Husain, M., & Bays, P. M. (2014) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3655 · Cited by 1,208
Self-citationCam-CAN, Shafto, M. A., TYLER, L. K., Dixon, M., Taylor, J. R., Rowe, J. B., Cusack, R., Calder, A. J., Marslen‐Wilson, W. D., Duncan, J., et al. (2014) · BMC Neurology · doi:10.1186/s12883-014-0204-1 · Cited by 684
Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G. D. A., Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Donkin, C., Farrell, S., Hitch, G. J., Hurlstone, M. J., et al. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000153 · Cited by 477
Self-citationAn interference model of visual working memory.
Oberauer, K., & Lin, H.-Y. (2016) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000044 · Cited by 350
What limits working memory capacity?
Oberauer, K., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000046 · Cited by 416
Metadata
- Authors
- van den Berg, R., Awh, E., & Ma, W. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- 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
- PMC
- PMC4159389
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
