Binding across space and time in visual working memory

Karlsen, Paul Johan; Allen, Richard J.; Baddeley, Alan; Hitch, Graham J. · 2010 · Memory & Cognition

DOI: 10.3758/mc.38.3.292

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the cognitive mechanisms underlying the binding of visual features (color and shape) in working memory, specifically addressing whether this process is automatic or requires attentional resources. While previous research suggested that binding co-located features is relatively automatic, the authors sought to determine if binding features separated in space or time imposes a greater demand on the central executive. The study was motivated by Baddeley’s episodic buffer model, which posits a passive store for bound objects but does not specify the active processes required to create those bindings, particularly when features are not perceptually unitized. The researchers conducted seven experiments using undergraduate participants. They compared memory performance for unitized objects (color and shape presented together) against conditions where features were spatially separated (presented simultaneously at different locations) or temporally separated (presented sequentially with a delay). To assess attentional demands, Experiments 2, 4, 6, and 7 introduced a demanding concurrent task (backward counting) to load the central executive, while control conditions used simple articulatory suppression. Memory was tested using single-probe recognition tasks. The design varied exposure durations and set sizes to establish baseline performance and sensitivity to interference. The results consistently showed that both spatial and temporal separation of features impaired recognition accuracy compared to unitized bindings. However, the critical finding was that the concurrent attentional task did not differentially disrupt performance based on the type of binding. In all experiments involving the backward counting task, the interaction between binding type and attentional load was non-significant. This indicates that while separated features are harder to remember, the process of binding them does not require additional executive resources beyond those needed for unitized features. The impairment caused by separation was likely due to increased visual complexity or the need for mental merging, rather than a specific attention-demanding binding mechanism. These findings suggest that the binding of features in visual working memory is largely automatic, even when features are separated in space or time. The results support the interpretation that the episodic buffer acts as a passive store capable of holding bound representations, but the formation of these bindings does not rely heavily on the central executive’s attentional resources. This challenges the view that non-unitized binding requires active, effortful control processes, implying instead that visual working memory can integrate disparate features without significant additional attentional cost.

Key finding

Spatial and temporal separation of visual features impairs memory accuracy, but this impairment is not exacerbated by attentional load, suggesting that feature binding is an automatic process independent of central executive resources.

Methodology

lab_experiment

Sample size: 122

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via author_sweep_intake on 2026-05-28.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• working memory