{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/99392"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/99392","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"A role for long term memory in search for spatial relations","abstract":"In the field of visual cognition, most studies focus on how we process features of objects, individual objects, or whole scenes, but relatively little research attention is paid to how we process relationships between objects and features. Our ability to appreciate relations between objects allows us to comprehend graphs, maps, and diagrams. Some argue that our ability to comprehend relations (visual and otherwise) is what makes us human (e.g. Penn, Holyoak, and Povinelli, 2008). Our capacity to maintain and manipulate relations is limited, though (Halford, Wilson, and Phillips, 1998; Halford, Baker, McCredden, and Bain, 2005) and experiments by Gordon Logan (1994) suggest that searching for a specified visual relation is attentionally- demanding. Dynamic binding, the mechanism that affords relational representations their power and flexibility, is subject to the limits of working memory and attention (e.g., Hummel and Biederman, 1992; Hummel, 2001; Hummel, 2003; Knowlton, Morisson, Hummel, and Holyoak, 2012). Logan (1994) found that searching for a target relation (i.e., a plus sign above a minus sign) among distractors did not show search slope improvements over thousands of trials even though searching for a single object among distractors did. His findings seem to suggest that there is no role for long term memory in the processing of relations. However, Woodman et al. (2013) showed that working memory demands for single objects held in working memory could be offloaded to long term memory as long as the target object was repeated for multiple trials. Could long term memory have an opportunity to offload working memory demands for relations if a target relation were repeated? Experiments 1, 2, and 3 presented here replicate and extend Logan’s finding that search slopes do not decrease when targets are defined by a spatial relation, but that they do decrease when the target relation is repeated on every single trial. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 show that participants’ search slopes decrease for relationally-defined targets even when visual features like shape, size, and location vary. Together, these experiments show that long term memory does have a role in processing visual relations that are repeated, and because it persists even when feature dimensions vary, the effect cannot be attributed to template matching.","abstract_html":"In the field of visual cognition, most studies focus on how we process features of objects, individual objects, or whole scenes, but relatively little research attention is paid to how we process relationships between objects and features. Our ability to appreciate relations between objects allows us to comprehend graphs, maps, and diagrams. Some argue that our ability to comprehend relations (visual and otherwise) is what makes us human (e.g. Penn, Holyoak, and Povinelli, 2008). Our capacity to maintain and manipulate relations is limited, though (Halford, Wilson, and Phillips, 1998; Halford, Baker, McCredden, and Bain, 2005) and experiments by Gordon Logan (1994) suggest that searching for a specified visual relation is attentionally- demanding. Dynamic binding, the mechanism that affords relational representations their power and flexibility, is subject to the limits of working memory and attention (e.g., Hummel and Biederman, 1992; Hummel, 2001; Hummel, 2003; Knowlton, Morisson, Hummel, and Holyoak, 2012). Logan (1994) found that searching for a target relation (i.e., a plus sign above a minus sign) among distractors did not show search slope improvements over thousands of trials even though searching for a single object among distractors did. His findings seem to suggest that there is no role for long term memory in the processing of relations. However, Woodman et al. (2013) showed that working memory demands for single objects held in working memory could be offloaded to long term memory as long as the target object was repeated for multiple trials. Could long term memory have an opportunity to offload working memory demands for relations if a target relation were repeated? Experiments 1, 2, and 3 presented here replicate and extend Logan’s finding that search slopes do not decrease when targets are defined by a spatial relation, but that they do decrease when the target relation is repeated on every single trial. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 show that participants’ search slopes decrease for relationally-defined targets even when visual features like shape, size, and location vary. Together, these experiments show that long term memory does have a role in processing visual relations that are repeated, and because it persists even when feature dimensions vary, the effect cannot be attributed to template matching.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Clevenger, Pamela E."],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Hummel, John E.","Beck, Diane M.","Federmeier, Kara","Hyde, Daniel","Simons, Daniel"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2018,"date_issued":"2018-03-13T15:49:05Z","date_published":"2018-03-13T15:49:05Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:37Z","subjects":["vision, spatial relations, long term memory, working memory, visual search"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2017 Pamela Clevenger"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/99392","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Hummel, John E.","Beck, Diane M.","Federmeier, Kara","Hyde, Daniel","Simons, Daniel"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Clevenger, Pamela E."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2018-03-13T15:49:05Z","2017-12-07","2017-12"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["vision, spatial relations, long term memory, working memory, visual search"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2017 Pamela Clevenger"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/99392"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["In the field of visual cognition, most studies focus on how we process features of objects, individual objects, or whole scenes, but relatively little research attention is paid to how we process relationships between objects and features. Our ability to appreciate relations between objects allows us to comprehend graphs, maps, and diagrams. Some argue that our ability to comprehend relations (visual and otherwise) is what makes us human (e.g. Penn, Holyoak, and Povinelli, 2008). Our capacity to maintain and manipulate relations is limited, though (Halford, Wilson, and Phillips, 1998; Halford, Baker, McCredden, and Bain, 2005) and experiments by Gordon Logan (1994) suggest that searching for a specified visual relation is attentionally- demanding. Dynamic binding, the mechanism that affords relational representations their power and flexibility, is subject to the limits of working memory and attention (e.g., Hummel and Biederman, 1992; Hummel, 2001; Hummel, 2003; Knowlton, Morisson, Hummel, and Holyoak, 2012). Logan (1994) found that searching for a target relation (i.e., a plus sign above a minus sign) among distractors did not show search slope improvements over thousands of trials even though searching for a single object among distractors did. His findings seem to suggest that there is no role for long term memory in the processing of relations. However, Woodman et al. (2013) showed that working memory demands for single objects held in working memory could be offloaded to long term memory as long as the target object was repeated for multiple trials. Could long term memory have an opportunity to offload working memory demands for relations if a target relation were repeated? Experiments 1, 2, and 3 presented here replicate and extend Logan’s finding that search slopes do not decrease when targets are defined by a spatial relation, but that they do decrease when the target relation is repeated on every single trial. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 show that participants’ search slopes decrease for relationally-defined targets even when visual features like shape, size, and location vary. Together, these experiments show that long term memory does have a role in processing visual relations that are repeated, and because it persists even when feature dimensions vary, the effect cannot be attributed to template matching.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2018-03-13 without embargo terms","The student, Pamela Clevenger, accepted the attached license on 2017-12-07 at 11:08.","The student, Pamela Clevenger, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-12-07 at 11:12.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-12-07 at 12:35.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11899 on 2018-03-13 at 10:11:27","Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-13T15:49:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 CLEVENGER-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 9697142 bytes, checksum: 7e84996591f711005d3678bdd2d14c6e (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4213 bytes, checksum: 4eb0a1ebeaab55e564bc92fbcc781c7b (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4559 bytes, checksum: ea49b2e20734f0d116619d7c3eb44e00 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-12-07"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A role for long term memory in search for spatial relations"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Hummel, John E.","Beck, Diane M.","Federmeier, Kara","Hyde, Daniel","Simons, Daniel"],"dc:creator":["Clevenger, Pamela E."],"dc:date":["2018-03-13T15:49:05Z","2017-12-07","2017-12"],"dc:description":["In the field of visual cognition, most studies focus on how we process features of objects, individual objects, or whole scenes, but relatively little research attention is paid to how we process relationships between objects and features. Our ability to appreciate relations between objects allows us to comprehend graphs, maps, and diagrams. Some argue that our ability to comprehend relations (visual and otherwise) is what makes us human (e.g. Penn, Holyoak, and Povinelli, 2008). Our capacity to maintain and manipulate relations is limited, though (Halford, Wilson, and Phillips, 1998; Halford, Baker, McCredden, and Bain, 2005) and experiments by Gordon Logan (1994) suggest that searching for a specified visual relation is attentionally- demanding. Dynamic binding, the mechanism that affords relational representations their power and flexibility, is subject to the limits of working memory and attention (e.g., Hummel and Biederman, 1992; Hummel, 2001; Hummel, 2003; Knowlton, Morisson, Hummel, and Holyoak, 2012). Logan (1994) found that searching for a target relation (i.e., a plus sign above a minus sign) among distractors did not show search slope improvements over thousands of trials even though searching for a single object among distractors did. His findings seem to suggest that there is no role for long term memory in the processing of relations. However, Woodman et al. (2013) showed that working memory demands for single objects held in working memory could be offloaded to long term memory as long as the target object was repeated for multiple trials. Could long term memory have an opportunity to offload working memory demands for relations if a target relation were repeated? Experiments 1, 2, and 3 presented here replicate and extend Logan’s finding that search slopes do not decrease when targets are defined by a spatial relation, but that they do decrease when the target relation is repeated on every single trial. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 show that participants’ search slopes decrease for relationally-defined targets even when visual features like shape, size, and location vary. Together, these experiments show that long term memory does have a role in processing visual relations that are repeated, and because it persists even when feature dimensions vary, the effect cannot be attributed to template matching.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2018-03-13 without embargo terms","The student, Pamela Clevenger, accepted the attached license on 2017-12-07 at 11:08.","The student, Pamela Clevenger, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-12-07 at 11:12.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-12-07 at 12:35.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11899 on 2018-03-13 at 10:11:27","Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-13T15:49:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 CLEVENGER-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 9697142 bytes, checksum: 7e84996591f711005d3678bdd2d14c6e (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4213 bytes, checksum: 4eb0a1ebeaab55e564bc92fbcc781c7b (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4559 bytes, checksum: ea49b2e20734f0d116619d7c3eb44e00 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-12-07"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/99392"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2017 Pamela Clevenger"],"dc:subject":["vision, spatial relations, long term memory, working memory, visual search"],"dc:title":["A role for long term memory in search for spatial relations"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:37Z"}