Elsevier

Cognition

Volume 155, October 2016, Pages 96-107
Cognition

Original Articles
Chunk formation in immediate memory and how it relates to data compression

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.024Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper attempts to evaluate the capacity of immediate memory to cope with new situations in relation to the compressibility of information likely to allow the formation of chunks. We constructed a task in which untrained participants had to immediately recall sequences of stimuli with possible associations between them. Compressibility of information was used to measure the chunkability of each sequence on a single trial. Compressibility refers to the recoding of information in a more compact representation. Although compressibility has almost exclusively been used to study long-term memory, our theory suggests that a compression process relying on redundancies within the structure of the list materials can occur very rapidly in immediate memory. The results indicated a span of about three items when the list had no structure, but increased linearly as structure was added. The amount of information retained in immediate memory was maximal for the most compressible sequences, particularly when information was ordered in a way that facilitated the compression process. We discuss the role of immediate memory in the rapid formation of chunks made up of new associations that did not already exist in long-term memory, and we conclude that immediate memory is the starting place for the reorganization of information.

Introduction

Individuals have a tendency to make information easier to retain by recoding it into chunks (e.g., Cowan et al., 2004). The process of chunking simplifies memorization by taking advantage of knowledge to reduce the quantity of information to be retained (Miller, 1956). As a key learning mechanism, chunking (or grouping) has had considerable impact on the study of expertise (e.g., Chase and Simon, 1973, Ericsson et al., 1980, Hu and Ericsson, 2012), immediate recall (e.g., Chen and Cowan, 2005, Farrell et al., 2011), and memory development (e.g., Cowan et al., 2010, Gilchrist et al., 2009).

For chunking to benefit memory, people need to be able to retrieve the chunks they stored. One way people retrieve chunks is via long-term memory processes (French et al., 2011, Gobet et al., 2001, Guida et al., 2012, Reder et al., 2016). Consider the letter string IBMCIAFBI. As Miller discussed, this letter string can be easily simplified to form three chunks if one uses long-term memory to recall the U.S. agencies (Miller, 1956) whose acronyms are IBM, CIA, and FBI.

Previous work on chunking has focused on how long-term memory aids chunk creation. However, immediate memory might also play a fundamental role in the creation of chunks. People may form chunks in immediate memory by rapidly encoding patterns before any consolidation in long-term memory occurs. For example, it is easy to remember the letter string AQAQAQ using a simple rule of repetition (e.g., AQ three times). This type of simplification does not necessarily depend on the use of long-term memory to recall past knowledge that relates items to each other.1 Instead, this process depends on the apprehension of regularities inherent to the stimulus at hand, i.e., compression.

This idea that immediate memory might play a fundamental role in the creation of chunks has generally been overlooked. Some previous findings are consistent with the proposal that chunks can increase memory capacity (Brady et al., 2009, Feigenson and Halberda, 2008). However, these studies have mostly focused on how long-term-memory representations contribute to encoding in immediate memory. In contrast, our goal is to provide a principled quantitative approach to how immediate memory relates to the formation of chunks. Getting a larger picture of chunking as a process originating in immediate memory needs a precise conceptualization, and the concept of compressibility could help in doing so.

We propose a two-factor theory of the formation of chunks in immediate memory. The first factor is compressibility (i.e., the idea that a more compact representation can be used to recode information in a lossless fashion2). Compressibility could predict chunking because it measures the degree to which the material is patterned, and hence the degree to which the material can be simplified. Memory for compressible sequences should be superior to memory for non-compressible sequences (the same way that studies in the domain of categorization have shown that compressible material is better learned over the long term; see Feldman (2000)).

The second factor is the order of the information to memorize. Presentation order might influence the ease with which patterns or regularities in the stimuli can be discovered, and compression algorithms typically depend on this kind of information. A presentation order that aligns with the process of simplifying the material may increase the likelihood that chunking occurs. In contrast, presentation orders that do not aid in the discovery of regularities, might result in failure to chunk compressible materials, causing them to be remembered in a way similar to non-compressible materials. Presentation order should therefore interact with compressibility. As a simple example, one can compress the set “2, 3, 4, 5, 6” with the rule, “all numbers between 2 and 6”, whereas with the series “2, 4, 6, 3, 5”, that same rule might not be noticed by the participant, so compression might not take place.

This two-factor theory is adapted from the domain of categorization, which has provided a framework for studying category formation in long-term memory, with explanations based on the compressibility of descriptions (Bradmetz and Mathy, 2008, Feldman, 2000, Feldman, 2003, Goodwin and Johnson-Laird, 2013, Lafond et al., 2007, Vigo, 2006) using different types of presentation orders (based on rules, similarity, or dissimilarity; see Elio and Anderson, 1981, Elio and Anderson, 1984, Gagné, 1950, Mathy and Feldman, 2009, Medin and Bettger, 1994). This framework nicely accounts for a wide range of categorization performance in long-term memory, but could in principle provide similar predictions for immediate memory. Our theory is that a compression model (e.g., Feldman, 2000) can be adapted to immediate memory. The rationale is that elementary structures, i.e., the redundancies that make a structure compressible, are simple enough to be used rapidly in immediate memory to cope with new situations.

We conducted an experiment to test the proposal outlined above, namely, that chunk formation occurs in immediate memory to optimize capacity before any consolidation process in long-term memory occurs. Our prediction is that immediate-memory span is proportional to stimulus compressibility, but only when the order of the information allows the participant to spontaneously detect redundancies such as pairs of similar features.

In the Discussion, we provide ample evidence that there are two major classes of concurrent models that cannot provide correct predictions for our results. The first class is Interference-based models of short-term memory, which predict poorer performance when participants see sequences containing similar features, whereas our model predicts that participants can take advantage of these similarities to compress information. The second class includes the minimal description length (MDL) approaches to long-term memory, which rely on the repetition of trials, and as such, offer no predictions about the compression process at play in our task.

Section snippets

Method

Two key aspects were investigated in the present experiment: compressibility of a sequence and presentation order within a sequence. These two factors were studied using categorizable multi-dimensional objects, with discrete features, such as small green spiral, large green spiral, small red square. The sequences used could not conform to already-learned chunks. Although the features themselves are part of basic knowledge, we are reasonably confident, for instance, that none of our participants

Results

The analyses were conducted on correct (1) or incorrect (0) serial-recall scores for each trial (a response was scored correct when both the items and the positions were correctly recalled), and for the average recall score across conditions (proportion correct). The data was first aggregated for a given variable, e.g., ‘presentation time’, in order to run a separate univariate ANOVA for each dependent variable (e.g., the mean proportion correct for all trials pooled).

Discussion

We explored the ability of untrained participants to increase their immediate memory by parsing sequences of objects into newly-formed chunks. The main reason for exploring chunk formation in immediate memory is that a chunk is too often thought of solely as a product of an already-formed long-term representation. Showing that recoding can occur very rapidly in immediate memory is a different undertaking. This idea may seem merely intuitive, but no other model can give a precise quantitative

Conclusion

One common idea is that working memory simply uses pointers to retrieve chunks in long-term memory, and that chunks are only consolidated pieces of information stored in long-term memory. We believe that we observed a chunking process that seems to result from the temporary creation of new representations. Recall performance in the current study was as small as about three items, but the total increased when the sequential order of the items was favorable to the formation of new chunks, i.e.,

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant # ANR-09-JCJC-0131-01) awarded to Fabien Mathy, a grant from the Région de Franche-Comté AAP2013 awarded to Fabien Mathy and Mustapha Chekaf, and by NIH Grant R01 HD-21338 awarded to Nelson Cowan. We are grateful to Jacob Feldman, Ori Friedman, Alessandro Guida, Harry H. Haladjian, and the Attention & Working Memory Lab at Georgia Tech for their helpful remarks.

References (61)

  • N.F. Johnson

    Chunking: Associative chaining versus coding

    Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior

    (1969)
  • N.F. Johnson

    The effect of a difficult word on the transitional error probabilities within a sequence

    Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior

    (1969)
  • G. Jones et al.

    Questioning short-term memory and its measurement: Why digit span measures long-term associative learning

    Cognition

    (2015)
  • D. Lafond et al.

    Complexity minimization in rule-based category learning: Revising the catalog of boolean concepts and evidence for non-minimal rules

    Journal of Mathematical Psychology

    (2007)
  • F. Mathy et al.

    What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory

    Cognition

    (2012)
  • K. Oberauer et al.

    A formal model of capacity limits in working memory

    Journal of Memory and Language

    (2006)
  • J. Rissanen

    Modeling by shortest data description

    Automatica

    (1978)
  • R. Vigo

    A note on the complexity of Boolean concepts

    Journal of Mathematical Psychology

    (2006)
  • S. Avons et al.

    Effects of visual similarity on serial report and item recognition

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A

    (1999)
  • D. Bor et al.

    A common prefrontal-parietal network for mnemonic and mathematical recoding strategies within working memory

    Cerebral Cortex

    (2007)
  • J. Bradmetz et al.

    Response times seen as decompression times in Boolean concept use

    Psychological Research

    (2008)
  • T.F. Brady et al.

    Compression in visual working memory: Using statistical regularities to form more efficient memory representations

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (2009)
  • D. Broadbent

    The magic number seven after fifteen years

  • G.D.A. Brown et al.

    A temporal ratio model of memory

    Psychological Review

    (2007)
  • N. Burgess et al.

    Memory for serial order: A network model of the phonological loop and its timing

    Psychological Review

    (1999)
  • Z. Chen et al.

    Chunk limits and length limits in immediate recall: A reconciliation

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (2005)
  • Z. Chen et al.

    Core verbal working-memory capacity: The limit in words retained without covert articulation

    Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (2009)
  • J. Cohen et al.

    Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1983)
  • N. Cowan

    The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    (2001)
  • N. Cowan et al.

    Constant capacity in an immediate serial-recall task: A logical sequel to miller (1956)

    Psychological Science

    (2004)
  • Cited by (52)

    • Identification and conceptualization of procedural chunks in chess

      2021, Cognitive Systems Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Therefore, we can assume that STM capacity limit is a combination of chunk size and number. Our results are in line with several recent studies stating that in complex situations where complementary procedures are used STM capacity cannot be expressed as a simple concept (Cowan, Rowder, Blume, & Saults, 2012; Chekaf et al., 2016). We propose that in procedural information processing, the level of expertise and sorting order of retrieved information are important factors in defining STM capacity.

    • Chunking and data compression in verbal short-term memory

      2021, Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      This link between compression and the set of possible messages corresponds to a central result in the field of information theory: efficient storage and transmission of information depends on knowledge of the statistical properties of the signal (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Only a small number of studies of STM have considered chunking in the context of data compression (e.g. Brady et al., 2009; Chekaf et al., 2016; Mathy & Feldman, 2012; Norris et al., 2020; Thalmann et al., 2019). Mathy and Feldman had participants recall digit sequences which varied in compressibility.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text