![]() ![]() ![]() Here we show that strongly masked visual data can be stored and accumulate to elicit clear perception. Despite these findings, unconscious memory is still poorly understood with limited evidence for unconscious iconic memory storage. I conclude by arguing that this format‐based distinction between memory stores entails that prominent views about consciousness and the perception–cognition border will likely have to be revised.Ī growing body of evidence indicates that information can be stored even in the absence of conscious awareness. Iconic memory stores icons, while VWM stores discursive (i.e., language‐like) representations. I argue that, while VWM capacity is probably governed by flexible resources rather than a sharp limit, the two memory stores should still be distinguished by their representational formats. Steven Gross and Jonathan Flombaum have recently challenged the division between iconic memory and VWM by arguing against the idea of capacity limits in favor of a flexible resource‐based model of short‐term memory. The iconicity of iconic memory has significant consequences for understanding consciousness, nonconceptual content, and the perception–cognition border. This paper argues that iconic memory stores icons, i.e., image‐like perceptual representations. Short‐term memory in vision is typically thought to divide into at least two memory stores: a short, fragile, high‐capacity store known as iconic memory, and a longer, durable, capacity‐limited store known as visual working memory (VWM). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |