Skip to content

Task demands determine comparison strategy in whole probe change detection

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)778-796
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Issue number5
Early online date20 Nov 2017
DateAccepted/In press - 24 Aug 2017
DateE-pub ahead of print - 20 Nov 2017
DatePublished (current) - May 2018


Detecting a change in our visual world requires a process that compares the external environment (test display) with the contents of memory (study display). We addressed the question of whether people strategically adapt the comparison process in response to different decision loads. Study displays of 3 colored items were presented, followed by 'whole-display' probes containing 3 colored shapes. Participants were asked to decide whether any probed items contained a new feature. In Experiments 1-4, irrelevant changes to the probed item's locations or feature bindings influenced memory performance, suggesting that participants employed a comparison process that relied on spatial locations. This finding occurred irrespective of whether participants were asked to decide about the whole display, or only a single cued item within the display. In Experiment 5, when the base-rate of changes in the nonprobed items increased (increasing the incentive to use the cue effectively), participants were not influenced by irrelevant changes in location or feature bindings. In addition, we observed individual differences in the use of spatial cues. These results suggest that participants can flexibly switch between spatial and nonspatial comparison strategies, depending on interactions between individual differences and task demand factors. These findings have implications for models of visual working memory that assume that the comparison between study and test obligatorily relies on accessing visual features via their binding to location.

    Research areas

  • Visual working memory, Change detection, Feature binding, Location binding, Relational encoding, Comparison process

    Structured keywords

  • Memory

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via APA at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 947 KB, PDF document


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups