Literature DB >> 25301015

The sensory strength of voluntary visual imagery predicts visual working memory capacity.

Rebecca Keogh1, Joel Pearson1.   

Abstract

How much we can actively hold in mind is severely limited and differs greatly from one person to the next. Why some individuals have greater capacities than others is largely unknown. Here, we investigated why such large variations in visual working memory (VWM) capacity might occur, by examining the relationship between visual working memory and visual mental imagery. To assess visual working memory capacity participants were required to remember the orientation of a number of Gabor patches and make subsequent judgments about relative changes in orientation. The sensory strength of voluntary imagery was measured using a previously documented binocular rivalry paradigm. Participants with greater imagery strength also had greater visual working memory capacity. However, they were no better on a verbal number working memory task. Introducing a uniform luminous background during the retention interval of the visual working memory task reduced memory capacity, but only for those with strong imagery. Likewise, for the good imagers increasing background luminance during imagery generation reduced its effect on subsequent binocular rivalry. Luminance increases did not affect any of the subgroups on the verbal number working memory task. Together, these results suggest that luminance was disrupting sensory mechanisms common to both visual working memory and imagery, and not a general working memory system. The disruptive selectivity of background luminance suggests that good imagers, unlike moderate or poor imagers, may use imagery as a mnemonic strategy to perform the visual working memory task.
© 2014 ARVO.

Entities:  

Keywords:  individual differences; memory capacity; mental imagery; perceptual disruption; verbal working memory; visual working memory

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25301015     DOI: 10.1167/14.12.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  17 in total

1.  Cortical excitability controls the strength of mental imagery.

Authors:  Rebecca Keogh; Johanna Bergmann; Joel Pearson
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 2.  The human imagination: the cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery.

Authors:  Joel Pearson
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  Attention driven phantom vision: measuring the sensory strength of attentional templates and their relation to visual mental imagery and aphantasia.

Authors:  Rebecca Keogh; Joel Pearson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 4.  Why do imagery and perception look and feel so different?

Authors:  Roger Koenig-Robert; Joel Pearson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Reduced visual acuity is mirrored in low vision imagery.

Authors:  Aries Arditi; Gordon Legge; Christina Granquist; Rachel Gage; Dawn Clark
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2021-02-04

6.  Neuroimaging results suggest the role of prediction in cross-domain priming.

Authors:  Catarina Amado; Petra Kovács; Rebecca Mayer; Géza Gergely Ambrus; Sabrina Trapp; Gyula Kovács
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Exploring the functional nature of synaesthetic colour: Dissociations from colour perception and imagery.

Authors:  Rocco Chiou; Anina N Rich; Sebastian Rogers; Joel Pearson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2018-04-13

Review 8.  Mental Imagery: Functional Mechanisms and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Joel Pearson; Thomas Naselaris; Emily A Holmes; Stephen M Kosslyn
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  How Visuo-Spatial Mental Imagery Develops: Image Generation and Maintenance.

Authors:  Marina C Wimmer; Katie L Maras; Elizabeth J Robinson; Martin J Doherty; Nicolas Pugeault
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Decoding the contents and strength of imagery before volitional engagement.

Authors:  Roger Koenig-Robert; Joel Pearson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.