Behav Res

DOI 10.3758/s13428-016-0741-1

Opportunity for verbalization does not improve visual

change detection performance: A state-trace analysis
Florian Sense1 Candice C. Morey2 Melissa Prince3 Andrew Heathcote4
Richard D. Morey5

The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Evidence suggests that there is a tendency to

verbally recode visually-presented information, and that in
some cases verbal recoding can boost memory performance.
According to multi-component models of working memory, memory performance is increased because task-relevant
information is simultaneously maintained in two codes. The
possibility of dual encoding is problematic if the goal is
to measure capacity for visual information exclusively. To
counteract this possibility, articulatory suppression is frequently used with visual change detection tasks specifically
to prevent verbalization of visual stimuli. But is this precaution always necessary? There is little reason to believe
that concurrent articulation affects performance in typical
visual change detection tasks, suggesting that verbal recoding might not be likely to occur in this paradigm, and if not,
precautionary articulatory suppression would not always be

necessary. We present evidence confirming that articulatory

suppression has no discernible effect on performance in a
typical visual change-detection task in which abstract patterns are briefly presented. A comprehensive analysis using
both descriptive statistics and Bayesian state-trace analysis
revealed no evidence for any complex relationship between
articulatory suppression and performance that would be
consistent with a verbal recoding explanation. Instead, the
evidence favors the simpler explanation that verbal strategies were either not deployed in the task or, if they were,
were not effective in improving performance, and thus have
no influence on visual working memory as measured during
visual change detection. We conclude that in visual change
detection experiments in which abstract visual stimuli are
briefly presented, pre-cautionary articulatory suppression is
unnecessary.
Keywords Articulatory suppression Change detection
State-trace Working memory capacity Verbalization

 Florian Sense

[email protected]
1

Department of Experimental Psychology & Department

of Psychometrics and Statistics, University of Groningen,
Groningen, Netherlands

Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh,

Edinburgh, UK

School of Psychology, Flinders University, Bedford Park,

Australia

School of Medicine, The University of Tasmania,

Hobart, Australia

School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

During his seminal experiments on human memory,

Sperling noticed that many of his participants verbalized
and repeated to-be-remembered material during retention,
even if the studied material was not aurally presented.
Sperling (1967) pointed out that visual information can be
verbalized and many people reported doing so. This reflection confirmed intuitions that regardless of presentation
modality, information may be encoded with some flexibility of representation: visual materials might be maintained
in a verbal code, and imagery corresponding to verbal input
may likewise become active.
However, demonstrating that recoding can occur does
not imply that it always occurs, nor that it is beneficial. Murray (1965) showed that saying visually-presented

Behav Res

verbal stimuli out loud improves recall performance relative to mouthing them silently. However, this relationship
only seems to persist if the visually-presented material
can be verbalized effectively (e.g., verbal stimuli, nameable visual images). The idea that it is the opportunity to
rehearse these verbal codes that improves performance also
remains a matter for debate, even for serially-ordered verbal
stimuli (Lewandowsky and Oberauer, 2015). Attempts to
verbalize stimuli that are difficult to describe succinctly and
accurately (e.g., faces) might actually harm performance
(Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). Brandimonte et al.
(1992) showed that verbal recoding can be detrimental to a
subsequent mental rotation task when the remembered verbal label is not relevant or helpful. What such experiments
suggest is that there is a strong tendency to verbally recode
visually-presented information, and that in some cases verbal recoding may boost memory performance. This logic is
consistent with multi-component models of working memory, which propose that separate short-term memory stores
for phonological and visual information can be applied to
a short-term memory task (Baddeley, 1986). Naturally, if
task-relevant information can be maintained simultaneously
in two useful codes, one would expect memory performance
to improve.
The possibility of dual encoding is problematic though
if the goal is to measure capacity for visual information
exclusively. Levy (1971) suggested a method of preventing
such recoding via meaningless concurrent articulation. By
repeating irrelevant syllables out loud during presentation
and retention of visual information, participants ability to
verbally recode visually-presented stimuli is restricted. This
procedure is known as articulatory suppression and is commonly used alongside visual change detection tasks with
the specifically-stated intention that it is meant to prevent
verbalization of visual stimuli (e.g. Allen, Baddeley, &
Hitch, 2006; Brockmole, Parra, Sala, & Logie, 2008;
Delvenne & Bruyer, 2004; Hollingworth & Rasmussen,
2010; Logie, Brockmole, & Vandenbroucke, 2009; Makovski
& Jiang, 2008; Makovski, Sussman, & Jiang, 2008;
Matsukura & Hollingworth, 2011; Treisman & Zhang,
2006; van Lamsweerde & Beck, 2012; Woodman & Vogel,
2005, 2008). This precaution is undertaken to ensure that
task performance reflects visual memory, rather than some
combination of memory for visual images and verbal codes.
The use of precautionary articulatory suppression is
common practice despite evidence that articulatory suppression has not been shown to have a measurable effect on
some visual change detection tasks (Luria, Sessa, Gotler,
Jolicoeur, & DellAcqua, 2010; Mate, Allen, & Baques,
2012; Morey & Cowan, 2004, 2005), nor have small verbal memory loads (Vogel, Woodman, & Luck, 2001). These
studies imply that the precaution of employing articulatory
suppression may be unnecessary: participants performed no

better without articulatory suppression than with it, suggesting that verbal recoding is not the default strategy for visual
change detection tasks as typically administered. However,
these findings simply report null effects of meaningless
articulatory suppression on visual memory tasks, and therefore cannot be taken as strong evidence of the absence of
some effect, given sufficient power to detect it. Until a
stronger case against verbal recoding during visual change
detection can be made, enforcing articulatory suppression to
prevent verbalization of visual images is a reasonable way
for researchers to better ensure that their measure of visual
memory performance is pure. However, enforcing articulation adds a substantial burden to an experiment from both
the participants and the experimenters point of view. If
a strong case could be made that possible verbal recoding of visual memoranda does not affect visual memory
performance, researchers would be free to forgo including
articulatory suppression from some designs.
We report evidence suggesting that articulatory suppression has no discernible effect on performance in a typical
visual change-detection task. The experiment was designed
so that some change-detection conditions encouraged verbalization by presenting memoranda one at a time. In all
cases, the stimuli were arrays of distinctly-colored squares,
and the object was to remember the location of each color.
We manipulated the number of items in each array, whether
the squares were presented simultaneously or sequentially,
and whether participants performed articulatory suppression
or not. If participants tend to verbally label the stimuli, and
if verbal labeling assists the recognition decision, we would
expect to observe at least a small benefit of silence over
articulation in all conditions. It may also be the case that
participants strategically choose when to verbally recode
stimuli. If so, we would expect to see selective impairments
with articulation for sequentially-presented items, perhaps
most strongly for small set sizes where naming all the items
might have occurred. In order to discern between small
effects of articulation and the null hypothesis of no effect at
all, we employ two modes of analysis: first, we provide a
straightforward analysis based on descriptive statistics that
shows that the effects tend to go in the reverse direction
to what is predicted, ruling out evidence for the predicted
effect; and second, we employed Bayesian state-trace analysis to show that participants show data patterns more
consistent with a single-parameter explanation (visual short
term memory) than a more complicated explanation (visual
short term memory plus verbal short term memory).

Methods
Participants performed a visual array change detection
task under four conditions formed by the cross of two

Behav Res

presentation conditions (sequential and simultaneous) and

two articulation conditions (silent and articulatory suppression). The simultaneous presentation condition was the
same as a standard visual array change detection task; in
the sequential condition, the stimuli were presented one
after another. We assumed that presenting visual stimuli
sequentially would afford a better opportunity to engage in
verbalization, if such verbalization occurs (but see Woodman, Vogel, & Luck, 2012). Articulatory suppression is
supposed to prevent participants from employing subvocal
verbalization. The combination of simultaneous/sequential
and silent/articulate conditions creates combinations of conditions that discourage participants from recruiting verbal
resources (i.e. articulate, simultaneous trials) as well as
those that make it more likely they could benefit from
verbalization (i.e. silent, sequential trials).
Participants
Fifteen participants (8 female) between the age of 21 and 31
(M = 25.4, SD = 2.67) were recruited from the population
of Groningen. Participants were paid e10 per 90-minute
session and recruited through a local online social media
group.
All participants were pre-screened for colorblindness and
medication use that might affect their cognitive abilities,
and all participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal
vision and normal hearing. Furthermore, participants were
only invited for subsequent sessions if they scored at least
85 % correct on set-size-two trials (across all conditions)
in the first session. This cut-off value was chosen based on
an unpublished pilot study in which 14 out of the 15 pilot
participants performed above 85 %, and the remaining lowperforming participant scored near chance (50 %) and was
assumed to have ignored the instructions. All fifteen participants in our final sample met this criterion. One of these
participants completed only four sessions due to scheduling difficulties, while the remainder of the final sample
completed five sessions.
Apparatus and Stimuli
The experiment was conducted using MATLAB (2011)
using the Psychophysics Toolbox extensions (Brainard,
1997; Kleiner et al., 2007; Pelli, 1997). The stimuli were
colored squares approximately 0.65 0.65 presented
within a 7.3 9.8 area around the screens center. On each
trial, the colors were randomly sampled without replacement from a set of nine easily-discriminable colors and
presented on a gray background. The set of possible colors
was identical to the one used by Rouder et al. (2008) with
the exception that black was excluded, since Morey (2011)
showed that black exhibited markedly different effects in a

similar change detection task. Stimuli were shown against

a neutral gray background. The items within a single array
were always arranged with a minimum distance of 2 from
one another and participants sat approximately 50 cm from
the monitors. This setup allowed them to see the entire
display without moving their heads.
Feedback was given via one of three clearlydiscriminable sounds signaling a correct, incorrect, or
invalid response (i.e., a key that was not assigned to either of
the two valid responses). The sounds were played through
headphones worn throughout the entire experiment.
Procedure
Within each session, participants completed one block of
trials in which subvocal articulation was suppressed by
requiring them to repeat aloud the syllables ta and da
(articulation block) and one block in which no such articulatory suppression was enforced (silent block). Both the
articulation and the silent blocks were further sub-divided
in two blocks: one in which stimuli were presented simultaneously and one in which they were presented sequentially.
The order in which blocks were completed was determined
based on the participants IDs and identical in each session.
There were 504 trials in each session, yielding a total of
2,520 trials per participant (except for participant 10 who
came in for four sessions, contributing 2,016 instead of
2,520 trials).
The overall structure of the task is depicted in Fig. 1.
The trial started with a fixation cross that was on screen
for 2,000 ms. The study time in the simultaneous block was
a linear function of the set size (study time = set size
100 ms) and the set sizes were 2, 4, and 8. We adopted this
deviation from the more typical visual change detection task
in which the timing of the stimulus display is constant in
order to ensure that exposure time to the objects was constant across the simultaneous/sequential manipulation. In
the sequential block, the stimuli appeared one after another.
Each stimulus was shown with a thin, black outline and
remained on the screen for 100 ms. The stimulus color was
then replaced with the background gray color and the black
outline remained. After an inter-stimulus interval of 200 ms
the following stimulus appeared on screen. The outlines of
all stimuli remained on screen until a mask appeared. There
was a 250 ms blank screen between the study array (or the
final stimulus color in the sequential presentation) and the
mask. The mask was displayed for 500 ms. Each individual
stimulus mask was made up of a 4 4 grid of colored rectangles and the colors were randomly chosen from the same
color set as the whole array. After the mask disappeared, a
2,250 ms retention interval (blank screen) delayed the onset
of a single probe. The probe remained on screen until the
participant responded. Alongside the probe were thin, black

Behav Res

Fixation cross: 2,000 ms

Study array: [set size] x 100 ms

Blank screen: 250 ms
Mask: 500 ms
Retention interval: 2,250 ms

tim

Probe: until response

Fig. 1 A schematic representation of a set size two trial in the simultaneous presentation condition. Note that the image is not to scale

outlines of the other stimuli from the study array, which

were displayed to prevent the participant from being unsure
about which of the studied stimuli was probed.

Results
Prior to data analysis, all trials containing invalid responses
(0.1 % of trials) were removed, and trials with unusually long or short response times (<200 ms or >3 s; 2 %
of trials) were excluded. The overwhelming majority of
these were too slow, possibly because participants took
unscheduled breaks by deliberately delaying their response.
Overall, 36,495 trials across the 15 participants remained for
analysis. Descriptive statistics for task performance across
conditions are summarized in Fig. 2. Overall accuracy is
high in the set size 2 condition, as expected, and decreases
as set size increases. In addition, Table 1 shows the mean hit
and false alarm rates across all participants.

In order to assess the performance while controlling for

response bias, for each condition-participant-set size combination we subtracted the false alarm rate from the hit rate to
form an overall performance measure d (Cowan et al. 2005;
Rouder et al. 2011). Of particular interest is how the performance advantage for the silent condition is affected by
the type of presentation. If participants verbalize when the
presentation is sequential, we would predict that articulation
would hurt performance more with sequential presentation,
and thus the advantage for the silent condition would be
larger with sequential presentation.
Figure 3a plots the silent advantage in the simultaneous condition as a function of the same for the sequential
condition for all participant by set size combinations. If
participants were verbalizing, then being silent should aid
performance. Moreover, being silent should aid performance more in the sequential-presentation condition than
in the simultaneous-presentation condition. This prediction
would appear in Fig. 3a as points falling below the diagonal.

(B) Sequential Condition

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8
hits false alarms

hits false alarms

(A) Simultaneous Condition

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1

0.1

articulate
silent

0
2

articulate
silent

0
4

set size

Fig. 2 Descriptive statistics for the relevant performance measure d

across the different conditions of the experiment. Semi-transparent
black circles show the mean performance in each condition

set size

per participant and lines connect individual participants means.

Larger, colored symbols are group means for each condition, connected
by thicker, black lines

Behav Res
Table 1 Mean hit and false alarm rates for all conditions across all participants
hits
simultaneous

sequential

set size

articulate

silent

articulate

silent

2
4
8

0.95 (0.022)
0.84 (0.065)
0.72 (0.079)

0.95 (0.036)
0.88 (0.063)
0.70 (0.100)

0.94 (0.026)
0.82 (0.076)
0.70 (0.101)

0.94 (0.032)
0.82 (0.097)
0.70 (0.174)

0.06 (0.035)
0.22 (0.132)
0.39 (0.138)

0.11 (0.066)
0.31 (0.166)
0.41 (0.142)

0.07 (0.039)
0.26 (0.154)
0.42 (0.159)

false alarms
2
4
8

0.08 (0.040)
0.25 (0.131)
0.41 (0.120)

Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations of the corresponding means

However, 28 out of the 45 points actually fall above the

diagonal, inconsistent with the verbalization hypothesis.
It is plausible to suppose that participants only sometimes engage in verbal recoding, perhaps when it is most
natural, or when they believe it will be most helpful (e.g.,
Larsen & Baddeley, 2003). Larsen and Baddeley surmised
that participants abandon articulatory rehearsal with long or
otherwise difficult-to-rehearse verbal lists. Building on this
assumption, one might imagine that participants engage in
strategic verbal recoding for small set sizes where helpful,
distinct labels may be generated for each item, but abandon
this strategy for larger set sizes. However, for all set sizes,
the number of points above the diagonal in Fig. 3a is greater

than one-half: 8/15, 10/15, and 10/15 points lie above the
diagonal for set sizes 2, 4, and 8, respectively. There is no
evidence of the predicted effect in these data; instead, the
effect appears to go in the wrong direction.
We also examined whether the apparent lack of an effect
may be due to differences in strategy over the experimental
sessions; however, a similar picture emerges when the effect
is examined across time, as in Fig. 3b. The verbalization
hypothesis would predict that points would fall above the
horizontal line at 0 on average; however, if anything, the
points tend to fall below the line.
Given the descriptive analysis above, we eschew typical ANOVA analyses in favor of reliance on a state-trace

Silent adv. bigger for sequential pres.

0.2

0.1
8

0.0
8
0.1

8
8
4
4 4
4 4
2
2
2
2 4
8 444 8
2
2
4 4 22 2
82 2
8 4
4 82
8
2 2
88 4
8
2

4
Effect (seq sim)

Simultaneous silent advantage

Simultaneous advantage (28/45)

0.2

0.1
8
0.0
2
4
0.1

4
2
8

8
2
4

8
4
2

2
8

2
8

2
4

8
4
2

2
8

8
4

0.2

Sequential advantage (17/45)

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

Sequential silent advantage

Fig. 3 a: Advantage for silent condition (i.e., d in silent condition

minus d in articulate condition) with simultaneous presentation as a
function of the same for sequential presentation. Each point represents
a single participant and set size. Error bars are approximate standard

0.2

Silent adv. bigger for simultaneous pres.

2

10

Block (2 per session)

errors. b: The difference between the advantage for the silent condition
in the sequential and simultaneous presentation conditions as a function of experimental block. In both plots, the number for each point
represents the set size

Behav Res

analysis.1 We have the luxury of avoiding the assumptionladen ANOVA because we have directional predictions that
are violated in the data. Thus, there cannot be evidence for
the prediction of interest. Furthermore, we are interested
in the dimensionality of the latent system that has produced the observed data - a question that an ANOVA, unlike
state-trace analysis (Prince et al., 2012), cannot provide a
reliable answer to. The state-trace analysis complements
the descriptive analysis by showing that the data are highly
consistent with a simple explanation: that performance is
governed by a single latent variable (interpreted as visual
short term memory capacity) and no more complicated
explanation involving verbalization is needed.
State-trace analysis
Another way to examine whether there is any evidence
for verbalization is a state-trace analysis. State-trace analysis, outlined in its original form by Bamber (1979), is
a data analysis technique intended to reveal how many
latent dimensions a system requires to produce observed
empirical results (see Prince et al., 2012 for an overview
and the application of Bayesian analysis). A simple system may have only one latent dimension (e.g., working
memory capacity in general, or visual working memory
capacity specifically), and all experimental manipulations
affect performance along that latent dimension. More complex systems may show relationships that are impossible to
explain by a single dimension, and therefore require positing
more latent constructs (see section Diagnosing Dimensionality in Prince et al. (2012) for a detailed explanation based
on hypothetical examples).
Considering visual change detection performance, one
might imagine that only one latent memory dimension contributes to recognition accuracy or alternatively that separate
visual and verbal memory systems jointly contribute to
recognition accuracy. The multi-component model of working memory (Baddeley, 1986) proposes sub-systems for
verbal and visual short-term memory, and would be consistent with the suggestion that both verbal and visual codes
are stored during visual array memory, with both codes
contributing to recognition accuracy. This assumption is
the reason why precautionary articulatory suppression is
so often employed during visual memory tasks. One reasonable prediction of the multi-component model is thus
that at least two latent factors, verbal and visual memory,
contribute to visual change recognition accuracy. Another
1 For

those interested, a traditional repeated measures ANOVA has

been included in the online supplement available at https://github.com/
fsense/opportunity-verbalization-statetrace

reasonable expectation is that whether or not verbal encoding occurs, it is insufficient to affect recognition accuracy
in this task, and in that case, a single dimension would
better explain recognition accuracy in visual change detection. If visual change detection performance in our study,
which was explicitly designed to allow verbalization to exert
effects in specific conditions, can be explained by a single
latent dimension then we would conclude that articulatory
suppression is not needed to prevent verbalization in tasks
with similar designs.
In the logic of state-trace analysis, performance in the
sequential and simultaneous presentation conditions arise
from either one or more latent constructs. If they both arise
from a single latent variable, such as (visual) working memory capacity and if performance in both is a monotone
function of the latent variable then performance in the
sequential presentation must be a monotone function of performance in the simultaneous condition. To the extent that
no monotone function can describe the relationship between
simultaneous and sequential task performance, two latent
constructs perhaps distinct visual and verbal working
memory capacities are assumed to be needed to describe
the performance.
For the state-trace analysis, we again used d, the hit rate
minus the false alarm rate, as a measure of performance
in our simulations. To reduce possibly spurious deviations
in our simulations, we computed Bayesian estimates of d
applying three reasonable constraints: first, we assumed that
the true hit rate was greater than the true false alarm rate,
and thus performance was truly above chance. Second, for
both the sequential and the simultaneous condition, d must
decrease with increasing array set size; for instance, true d
to a set size of 8 cannot be better than performance to set size
4, all other things being equal. Third, it was assumed that
suppression cannot benefit performance; for each set size
and presentation condition, the true d in the articulate condition must be less than in the silent condition. This restriction
was applied because a small dual-task cost appearing in all
conditions would be consistent with any working memory
theory, and with our distinctly-colored stimuli and meaningless articulation instructions, no benefit of articulation was
reasonably expected. When a simulation produced one of
these patterns, we excluded it and replaced it. Estimating
the true discrimination under these restrictions yields a less
error-prone measure of performance due to the exclusion of
simulations with implausible data patterns.
Figure 4 shows the state-trace plots for each participant,
formed by plotting estimated performance in the simultaneous presentation condition against the performance in the
sequential condition. State-trace logic says that more than
one latent construct is needed to explain the data when

Behav Res

StateTrace Plots for Individual Participants

1.0

BF = 6.6
0.8

2
4

BF = 6.7

BF = 12.4

0.6

8
8

0.4
4

8 4

0.2
8
0.0
1.0

BF = 13.3

BF = 23.8

0.8

BF = 35
22

0.6

2
2

8
8

0.4

8
8

Accuracy in Simultaneous Condition

0.2

0.0
1.0

BF = 49.2

BF = 61.9

0.8

BF = 69.3

4
4

0.6
4

0.4
4

0.2

0.0
1.0
2

BF = 104.3

BF = 105.8

BF = 152.7

0.8
4

0.6

4
0.4

8
8

0.2

8
8
8

0.0
1.0

BF = 304.8

2
2

BF = 659.2

2
2

BF = 4799.6

0.8
4
4

0.6

0.4
8

0.2
Articulate
Silent
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Accuracy in Sequential Condition

Fig. 4 Individual state-trace plots for all 15 participants. The dependent variables are hit rate minus false alarm rate d for the three set
sizes (2, 4, and 8) and are plotted with standard errors. In the top left

corner, each plot also features the Bayes factor in favor of a monotone
ordering of the points over a non-monotone ordering

Behav Res

these points cannot be joined by a single, monotone curve;

however, as can be seen from the state-trace plots for all
participants, the state-trace plots are strikingly monotone.
There does not appear to be any evidence that more than a
single latent construct (visual) working memory capacity
is needed, and thus no evidence that verbalization plays
a role in performance in this task.
To quantify the support for monotonicity in the statetrace plots, we computed Bayes factors comparing the
evidence for two hypotheses: first, that the true performance
underlying the state-trace plots are ordered the same on both
axes (that is, they can be described by a monotone curve),
and second, that they are not ordered the same on both axes
(Prince et al., 2012). We refer the reader to Prince et al.
(2012) for technical details, and to the supplement to this
article for details of how these Bayes factors were computed (see also Davis-Stober, Morey, Gretton, & Heathcote,
2015).
In addition to the state-trace plots for each participant,
Fig. 4 also contains the Bayes factor favoring a monotone ordering of the points over a non-monotone one. The
Bayes factors uniformly favored the monotone ordering of
the points. The Bayes factors ranged from about 7 to almost
5,000. These data do not appear to provide any evidence for
a deviation from monotonicity. Because our manipulations
were designed to introduce effects of articulation consistent
with the notion that verbal labeling can occur during visual
memory tasks and can sometimes aid performance, this persistent monotonicity suggests that, at least for paradigms
like this one, verbal labeling does not contribute to visual
change detection performance.

Discussion and Conclusions

The main question motivating the experiment we report
was whether verbalization assists with other processes to
influence visual memory performance. In that case, the
application of articulatory suppression would be required
to disengage a verbal memory dimension so that a pure
measure of visual memory performance could be obtained.
Neither a straightforward descriptive analysis nor a statetrace analysis revealed evidence that participants engaged
in verbalization or that verbalization helped visual recognition memory, despite the fact that the experimental design
favored the use of verbalization even more than the typical design of visual change detection tasks. The absence
of a complex relationship between suppression, presentation type, and performance provides evidence that verbal
recoding was not a strategy adopted by the participants
in this task. Unlike previous studies which did not show
effects of articulation on visual change detection performance, we were able to quantify evidence in favor of

the null hypothesis for each individual participant using

Bayesian state-trace analysis, providing novel positive evidence for the absence of this effect.
These results do not rule out any particular model
of working memory. One interpretation of the multicomponent working memory model (Baddeley, 1986),
namely that both verbal and visual codes would be generated and maintained during visual change detection tasks,
was unsupported by our analysis. The assumption that verbal codes could be generated during visual change detection
is not a proposal of the model, but merely an assumption made by researchers that is consistent with the model.
Verbal encoding of visual materials is not necessarily obligatory. However, our results do have important practical
implications for researchers interested in measuring visual
working memory capacity. Our analyses confirm that for
briefly-presented, abstract visual materials whose to-beremembered elements are not readily encompassed by a
verbal label, verbal labeling either does not occur at all,
or if it does occur, does not contribute to recognition
accuracy. These results are not inconsistent with the multicomponent working memory model, but suggest that it is
not reasonable to invoke this influential model to support
arguments that verbal encoding of visual materials necessarily contaminates estimates of visual working memory
capacity.
Another possible interpretation of the multi-component
model of working memory is that the central executive component, which directs attention within the system, may only
be applied to a single sub-system at once. This supposition might lead to predictions that individuals strategically
choose to encode visual materials in verbal code or alternatively in visual code. Though it would be difficult to
eliminate such a flexible account of the encoding of visual
materials entirely, we think that our data tend to rule out
this idea as applied to visual change detection. If this strategic choice of coding occurred, then it might reasonably
have occurred only in the sequential condition, or only for
small set sizes, or might have been especially prevalent
in the sequential conditions for small set sizes. Evidence
against the interactions that would support these predictions are provided by descriptive analysis: for all set sizes,
more participants showed a greater silent advantage in the
simultaneous condition, contrary to predictions. Note that
the multi-component working memory model generates no
explicit prediction that participants must strategically switch
between encoding materials in verbal or visual code; indeed,
it has been shown that encoding verbal and visual-spatial
stimuli can proceed with little if any dual-task cost (Cowan
and Morey, 2007; Morey et al., 2013), which rather suggests
that adopting a switching strategy would be unnecessary
if one assumes that separate verbal and visual short-term
memory sub-systems are available.

Behav Res

One caveat for the interpretation of these results is that

state-trace analysis, like all methods, is limited by the resolution of the data. Detecting deviations from monotonicity
in a curve depends on how finely points on the curve are
measured. It is possible that with finer gradations of set size,
we might be able to detect non-monotonicities that are not
apparent in these data. However, visual inspection of the
state-trace plots in Fig. 4 suggests that any effect of articulatory suppression is small; detecting such a small deviation
from monotonicity would require finer gradations of sets
size and more trials per set size. Our design already included
thousands of trials per participant, and detected no positive effect of articulation condition while providing robust
positive evidence for monotonicity. Even if a small deviation from monotonicity existed, it would be unlikely to have
any substantial effect on measurements of visual working
memory capacity.
In some instances, verbalization clearly effects visual
memory performance (e.g. Brandimonte et al. 1992), but
features of the stimuli and the task likely limit the potential effects of verbalization. Stimulus presentation duration
is likely a crucial factor determining whether verbalization strategies are employed in visual memory tasks. The
abstractness of the stimuli employed likely also influences the extent to which verbalization occurs. In instances
in which verbalization appeared to assist visual memory,
abstract visual patterns were shown for 3 seconds, with
retention intervals of 10 seconds, allowing plenty of time for
both the generation and rehearsal of verbal labels (Brown
& Wesley, 2013; Brown et al., 2006). Moreover, in each of
these studies demonstrating effects of verbalization, stimuli that were amenable to verbalization (determined by pilot
testing) were chosen. In an investigation of effects of articulation on color-shape memory in which only articulation
of visually imaginable phrases harmed visual recognition,
participants were given 4 seconds, one second per visual
object, to study the objects for a later memory test (Mate
et al., 2012). In contrast, the stimulus presentation timings
we employed (100300 ms per item, depending on whether
inter-stimulus intervals are considered) were substantially
faster than those used in paradigms meant to encourage
verbalization, and our stimuli were random patterns of colors. Recognition of the color and its spatial location was
required to respond correctly. These design features are representative of visual change detection paradigms generally.
The timings we chose are within the range of the visual
change detection papers cited in our Introduction, which
range from 8 ms per item (Woodman & Vogel, 2005) to as
much as 500 ms per item (Brockmole et al., 2008). We conclude that for presentations as fast or faster than the 100 ms
per item rate that we measured, it appears safe to assume
that verbalization does not augment visual change detection
performance.

Researchers employing nameable visual stimuli at paces

enabling verbalization should still consider employing precautionary articulatory suppression if their goal is to isolate visual memory specifically. However, based on our
data, we conclude that for many typical visual memory paradigms, such as those using brief presentations
of randomly-generated abstract images, this precaution is
unnecessary. Enforcing precautionary articulatory suppression does not seem to be necessary to get interpretable data
from visual change detection tasks.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Yongqui Cong, Christian
Hummeluhr, and Mareike Kirsch for valuable assistance with data
collection.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.

References
Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2006). Is the binding of
visual features in working memory resource-demanding? Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 298313.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bamber, D. (1979). State trace analysis: method of testing simple
theories of causation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 19,
137181.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10,
433436.
Brandimonte, M. A., Hitch, G. J., & Bishop, D. V. M. (1992). Verbal
recoding of visual stimuli impairs mental image transformations.
Memory & Cognition, 20(4), 449455.
Brockmole, J. R., Parra, M. A., Sala, S. D., & Logie, R. H. (2008). Do
binding deficits account for agerelated decline in visual working
memory? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 543547.
Brown, L. A., Forbes, D., & McConnell, J. (2006). Limiting the use of
verbal coding in the visual patterns test. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology Section A, 59(7), 11691176.
Brown, L. A., & Wesley, R. W. (2013). Visual working memory is
enhanced by mixed strategy use and semantic coding. Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 328338.
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Saults, J. S., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S.,
Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. (2005). On the capacity of attention: its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive
aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 42100.
Cowan, N., & Morey, C. C. (2007). How can dualtask working memory retention limits be investigated? Psychological Science, 18,
686688.
Davis-Stober, C., Morey, R. D., Gretton, M., & Heathcote, A. (2015).
Bayes factors for state-trace analysis. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2015.08.004
Delvenne, J. F., & Bruyer, R. (2004). Does visual shortterm memory
store bound features? Visual Cognition, 11(1), 127.
Hollingworth, A., & Rasmussen, I. P. (2010). Binding objects to locations: the relationship between object files and visual working

Behav Res
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 36(3), 543564.
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). Whats new in
Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36. ECVP Abstract Supplement.
Larsen, J. D., & Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Disruption of verbal
stm by irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and manual tapping: do they have a common source? The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56(8), 1249
1268.
Levy, B. A. (1971). Role of articulation in auditory and visual shortterm memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
10, 123132.
Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2015). Rehearsal in serial recall:
an unworkable solution to the nonexistent problem of decay.
Psychological Review, 122, 674699.
Logie, R. H., Brockmole, J. R., & Vandenbroucke, A. R. E. (2009).
Bound feature combinations in visual short-term memory are
fragile but influence long-term learning. Visual Cognition, 17(1),
160179.
Luria, R., Sessa, P., Gotler, A., Jolicoeur, P., & DellAcqua, R.
(2010). Visual short-term memory capacity for simple and complex objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(3), 496512.
Makovski, T., & Jiang, Y. V. (2008). Indirect assessment of visual
working memory for simple and complex objects. Memory &
Cognition, 36(6), 11321143.
Makovski, T., Sussman, R., & Jiang, Y. V. (2008). Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory
probes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 34(2), 369380.
Mate, J., Allen, R. J., & Baques, J. (2012). What you say matters:
exploring visual-verbal interactions in visual working memory.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(3), 395
400.
MATLAB (2011). Version 7.13.0 (r2011b). Natick, Massachusetts:
The MathWorks Inc.
Matsukura, M., & Hollingworth, A. (2011). Does visual short-term
memory have a high-capacity stage? Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 18(6), 10981104.
Morey, C. C., & Cowan, N. (2004). When visual and verbal memories compete: Evidence of crossdomain limits in working memory.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 296301.
Morey, C. C., & Cowan, N. (2005). When do visual and verbal
memories conflict? The importance of working-memory load and
retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 31, 703713.

Morey, C. C., Morey, R. D., van der Reijden, M., & Holweg,
M. (2013). Asymmetric cross-domain interference between two
working memory tasks: implications for models of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 324348.
Morey, R. D. (2011). A hierarchical Bayesian model for the measurement of working memory capacity. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology, 55, 824.
Murray, D. J. (1965). Vocalization-at-presentation and immediate
recall, with varying presentation rates. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 4756.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10,
437442.
Prince, M., Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2012). The design and analysis
of state-trace experiments. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 7899.
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Cowan, N., Zwilling, C. E., Morey, C. C.,
& Pratte, M. S. (2008). An assessment of fixed-capacity models of
visual working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 105, 59765979.
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Morey, C. C., & Cowan, N. (2011). How
to measure working-memory capacity in the change-detection
paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 324330.
Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: some things are better left unsaid.
Cognitive Psychology, 22, 3671.
Sperling, G. (1967). Successive approximations to a model for shortterm memory. Acta Psychologica, 27, 285292.
Treisman, A., & Zhang, W. (2006). Location and binding in visual
working memory. Memory & Cognition, 34(8), 17041719.
van Lamsweerde, A. E., & Beck, M. R. (2012). Attention shifts or
volatile representations: what causes binding deficits in visual
working memory? Visual Cognition, 20(7), 771792.
Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2001). Storage of
features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 92114.
Woodman, G. F., & Vogel, E. K. (2005). Fractionating working memory: consolidation and maintenance are independent processes.
Psychological Science, 16(2), 106113.
Woodman, G. F., & Vogel, E. K. (2008). Selective storage and
maintenance of an objects features in visual working memory.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 223229.
Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2012). Flexibility in
visual working memory: accurate change detection in the face of
irrelevant variations in position. Visual Cognition, 20(1), 128.