Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Iconic memory: fallacies persist (?)

By Alison C Bowling and William Lovegrove


Two recent papers (Coltheart, 1980; Long, 1980) have evaluated literature on the relationship between \u22iconic memory\u22 and \u22visible persistence.\u22 In doing this, both writers focused on methods of measurement of these phenomena and the influence on them of luminance and duration. On the basis of his literature review, Coltheart (p. 210) concluded \u22the distinction between iconic memory and visible persistence is not merely terminological: they are actually different psychological processes.\u22 In comparison, Long concluded (p.814) that \u22the appealing parsimony of equating visible persistence and iconic memor)’, which has been the traditional view (e.g., Neisser, 1967), need not be abandoned.\u22 The present paper evaluates the strength of Long’s arguments, and concludes that: (1) conflict arises over problems of definition; (2) the data from experiments using methods considered inappropriate by Long are very consistent and yield useful information about visible persistence; (3) it consequently cannot be claimed that the bulk of the evidence supports a positive relationship between stimulus intensity (or duration) and persistence duration; (4)it is misleading to claim that Long’s data, usually collected under a specific combination of somewhat extreme experimental conditions, is representative of data in the area; and (5)iconic memory and visible persistence cannot be readily equated

Topics: Psychology
Publisher: ePublications@SCU
Year: 1982
OAI identifier:
Provided by: ePublications@SCU
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.