Cited by 103Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The case against specialized visual-spatial short-term memory

Morey, Candice C.·2018·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

The dominant paradigm for understanding working memory, or the combination of the perceptual, attentional, and mnemonic processes needed for thinking, subdivides short-term memory (STM) according to whether memoranda are encoded in aural-verbal or visual formats. This traditional dissociation has been supported by examples of neuropsychological patients who seem to selectively lack STM for either aural-verbal, visual, or spatial memoranda, and by experimental research using dual-task methods. Though this evidence is the foundation of assumptions of modular STM systems, the case it makes for a specialized visual STM system is surprisingly weak. I identify the key evidence supporting a distinct verbal STM system-patients with apparent selective damage to verbal STM and the resilience of verbal short-term memories to general dual-task interference-and apply these benchmarks to neuropsychological and experimental investigations of visual-spatial STM. Contrary to the evidence on verbal STM, patients with apparent visual or spatial STM deficits tend to experience a wide range of additional deficits, making it difficult to conclude that a distinct short-term store was damaged. Consistently with this, a meta-analysis of dual-task visual-spatial STM research shows that robust dual-task costs are consistently observed regardless of the domain or sensory code of the secondary task. Together, this evidence suggests that positing a specialized visual STM system is not necessary. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000155

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Robust transfer is expected for spatial recall because an established visuo-spatial STM system is likely absent.

    “For spatial recall, robust transfer is expected in light of the likely absence of an established visuo-spatial STM system (Morey, 2018; Morey & Miron, 2016).”

    From Working memory training involves learning new skills (2019) · cites this paper as Morey, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morey, C. C.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Morey, Candice C.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2018-08
Volume
144
Issue
8
Pages
849-883
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2796716686
Cited by
103
References
189
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11
FWCI
13.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
verbal short-term memory, working memory, dual-task interference, neuropsychological patients, secondary task interference
MeSH terms
Attention, Female, Humans, Memory Disorders, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Perception, Visual Perception, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Spatial Memory

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