eprintid: 10092190
rev_number: 12
eprint_status: archive
userid: 608
dir: disk0/10/09/21/90
datestamp: 2020-02-25 13:58:33
lastmod: 2020-02-25 13:58:33
status_changed: 2020-02-25 13:58:33
type: article
metadata_visibility: show
creators_name: Cheng, T
title: Iconic memory and attention in the overflow debate
ispublished: pub
divisions: UCL
divisions: A01
divisions: B03
divisions: C01
divisions: F16
keywords: iconic memory; attention; consciousness; overflow; postdiction; modulation
note: This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
abstract: The overflow debate concerns this following question: does conscious iconic memory have a higher capacity than attention does? In recent years, Ned Block has been invoking empirical works to support the positive answer to this question. The view is called the “rich view” or the “Overflow view”. One central thread of this discussion concerns the nature of iconic memory: for example how rich they are and whether they are conscious. The first section discusses a potential misunderstanding of “visible persistence” in this literature. The second section discusses varieties of attention relevant to this debate. The final section discusses the most prominent alternative interpretation of the Sperling paradigm—the postdiction interpretation—and explains how it can be made compatible with a weaker version of the rich or overflow view.
date: 2017-03-09
date_type: published
official_url: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1304018
oa_status: green
full_text_type: pub
language: eng
primo: open
primo_central: open_green
verified: verified_manual
elements_id: 1285901
doi: 10.1080/23311908.2017.1304018
lyricists_name: Cheng, Huei-Ying
lyricists_id: HCHEN18
actors_name: Flynn, Bernadette
actors_id: BFFLY94
actors_role: owner
full_text_status: public
publication: Cognitive Science & Neuroscience
volume: 4
article_number: 1304018
citation:        Cheng, T;      (2017)    Iconic memory and attention in the overflow debate.                   Cognitive Science & Neuroscience , 4     , Article 1304018.  10.1080/23311908.2017.1304018 <https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1304018>.       Green open access   
 
document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10092190/1/23311908.2017.1304018.pdf