Set-size effects in change detection depend on failures of retrieval and/or comparison and not on perception, encoding or storage

Abstract

Set-size effects in change detection is often used to investigate the capacity limits of dividing attention. Such capacity limits have been attributed to a variety of processes including perception, memory encoding, memory storage, memory retrieval, comparison and decision. In this study, we investigated the locus of the effect of increasing set size from 1 to 2. To measure purely attentional effects and not other phenomena such as crowding, a precue was used to manipulate relevant set size and keep the display constant across conditions. The task was to detect a change in the orientation of 1 or 2 Gabor patterns. The locus of the capacity limits was determined by varying when observers were cued to the only stimulus that was relevant. We began by measuring the baseline set-size effect in an initial experiment. In the next experiment, a 100% valid postcue was added to test for an effect of decision. This postcue did not change the set-size effects. In the critical experiments, a 100% valid cue was provided during the retention interval between displays, or only one stimulus was presented in the second display (local recognition). For both of these conditions, there was little or no set-size effect. This pattern of results was found for both hard-to-discriminate stimuli typical of perception experiments and easy-to-discriminate stimuli typical of memory experiments. These results are consistent with capacity limits in memory retrieval, and/or comparison. For these set sizes, the results are not consistent with capacity limits in perception, memory encoding or memory storage. Significance SectionThe change detection paradigm is often used to demonstrate effects of divided attention. But it is not clear whether these effects are due to perception, memory, or judgment and decision. In this article, we present new evidence that the divided attention effect in change detection is due to limits in memory retrieval or comparison processes. These results are not consistent with limits in perception, memory encoding or memory storage.