•Visual working memory (VWM) has a limited capacity to store visual information.•Labels categorize the visual stimuli, increasing categorical representations in VWM.•Labeling also increases ...continuous information about the stimulus in VWM.•The increase in continuous information depends on the distinctiveness of the labels.•Labels that are used to categorize many stimuli, reduce memory precision.
Describing our visual experiences improves their retention in visual working memory, yielding a labeling benefit. Labels vary, however, in categorical distinctiveness: they can be applied broadly or narrowly to categorize stimuli. Does categorical distinctiveness constrain the labeling benefit? Here, we varied the number of terms used to label continuously varying colors (Experiment 1) and shapes (Experiment 2). Participants memorized four items, and later recalled them using a continuous color or shape wheel. During study, participants articulated “bababa” or labeled the items with two, four, or their preferred term. Recall error decreased with increases in the number of labels. Mixture modeling showed that labeling increased the probability of recall. Memory precision, however, varied with categorical distinctiveness: broad labels reduced precision, whereas categorically distinct labels increased precision compared to no-labels. In sum, in-the-moment labeling activates categorical knowledge that facilitates the storage of visual details. Data and analysis scripts are available at: https://osf.io/mqg4k/
Interleaved learning has been shown to be better for delayed memory performance than blocked learning. Nevertheless, people judge blocked learning to be more effective. In the present work, we tested ...different explanations for this metacognitive bias. Across three experiments, participants studied sequences of object-color associations for a final color-reproduction test. In Experiment
1
, colors of a sequence were selected from one color category (blocked-study condition) or distinct color categories (interleaved-study condition). Participants gave higher judgements of learning (JOLs) for objects studied in the blocked condition, although performance was better for objects in the interleaved condition. In Experiment
2
, participants’ immediate memory performance after each sequence was additionally measured. JOLs were again higher for objects in the blocked condition, and they mimicked participants’ immediate memory performance suggesting a link between participants’ evaluations of the learning strategies and their immediate memory effects. In Experiment
3
, the objects of one sequence were either grouped by category (blocked-study condition) or derived from distinct categories (interleaved-study condition). Neither JOLs, nor immediate performance was affected by this manipulation of blocked learning, speaking against the possibility that people prefer blocked learning because of habit only. We conclude that people overestimate the effectiveness of blocked learning due to the immediate memory boost caused by blocked learning and not due to their previously acquired habit to study in blocks. This study provides insights into how people evaluate the effectiveness of learning strategies and why these evaluations are not always accurate.
How do verbal descriptions affect visual memory over the short and long term? Here we show for the first time that verbal labeling can boost visual memories, but the source of this benefit depends on ...whether representations are maintained over the short term in visual working memory or over the long term in visual long-term memory. Across three experiments, we contrasted color memory of randomly colored objects when participants labeled (a) the color, (b) the object, or (c) the color-object binding, to memory under an articulatory suppression condition inhibiting labeling. Memory was tested at two time points: after three objects (visual working memory) and at the end of the experiment (visual long-term memory). In Experiment 1, color labeling improved, whereas object labeling impaired, visual working memory in comparison to suppression. Visual long-term memory remained unchanged across conditions. Experiment 2 tested whether this was attributable to poor overall long-term learning by repeating the colored objects over three successive working memory trials. This increased performance over the short and long term, yet labeling did not change learning rate over repetitions or delayed memory performance, showing no long-term memory benefit. In Experiment 3, a labeling benefit was observed when the color-object binding was labeled both over the short and long term. Mixture modeling indicated that color-labeling benefits in visual working memory resulted from an increase of detailed visual memory, whereas long-term memory benefits accrued from categorical representations. Our findings point to dissociations on the role of language in visual working memory and visual long-term memory.
Visual objects often contain several features. Previous studies showed that verbally labeling a visual feature boosts its retention in a continuous format in visual working memory. Yet, the fate of ...nonlabeled visual features remained unexplored. One hypothesis is that labeling induces tradeoffs in the allocation of working memory capacity across labeled and nonlabeled features. To test this, we asked participants to memorize multi-feature objects (varying in color, orientation, and spatial frequency), while labeling either its (a) color, (b) orientation, or (c) spatial frequency. To inhibit labeling, they repeated "bababa" aloud in a control condition. At the test, labeled and nonlabeled features were reproduced using a continuous scale. Across four experiments, labeling increased continuous memory for the labeled feature, even when labels were arbitrary. Labeling aftereffects on nonlabeled features were mixed: only sometimes guessing increased. These findings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that labeling induces a capacity-allocation tradeoff. Rather, costs to nonlabeled features accrued when the labeling task was attentionally demanding (e.g., using less familiar or arbitrary labels). We conclude that labeling activates conceptual knowledge, thereby protecting and boosting continuous memory of the labeled feature; yet the attentional demands imposed by labeling itself can lead to the forgetting of nonlabeled features.
Public Significance StatementWe often verbally label the visual world around us. Previous studies showed that labeling a visual feature (e.g., color) promoted the immediate retention of fine-grained information about the labeled feature (i.e., its exact color hue). Visual objects are, however, usually composed of multiple features-for example, color, shape, orientation, size, etc.-and not all features may be labeled at once. The present study showed that labeling only one of the relevant features of an object always boosted immediate memory of the labeled feature, increasing how much fine-grained information was retained in mind, while sometimes also producing costs to the nonlabeled features. These costs were generated as an aftereffect of the demand for the labeling task: when labeling was hard, it consumed attentional resources that would be used to encode nonlabeled features.
The capacity limitations of visual working memory may be bypassed by verbal labeling. In adults, labeling increases estimates of both quantity and quality of visual working memory. However, we do not ...know when children begin to use labeling and whether labeling similarly benefits visual memories of children under and over age 7. We assessed whether children benefit from prompted and spontaneous labeling opportunities, examining how labeling affects the storage of categorical (prototypical) and continuous (fine-grained) color information. Participants memorized colored candies for a continuous reproduction test either while remaining silent, labeling the colors aloud, or saying irrelevant syllables (discouraging verbal labeling). Mixture modeling confirmed that both categorical and continuous representations increased with age. Our labeling manipulation showed that spontaneous labeling increased with age. For the youngest children, prompted labeling especially boosted categorical memory, whereas labeling benefited categorical and continuous memory similarly in the older age groups.
PDF
