Is working memory inherently more "precise" than long-term memory? Extremely high fidelity visual long-term memories...

Long-term memory is often considered easily corruptible, imprecise, and inaccurate, especially in comparison to working memory. However, most research used to support these findings relies on weak long-term memories: those where people have had only one brief exposure to an item. Here we investigated the fidelity of visual long-term memory in more naturalistic setting, with repeated exposures, and ask how it compares to visual working memory fidelity. Using psychophysical methods designed to precisely measure the fidelity of visual memory, we demonstrate that long-term memory for the color of frequently seen objects is as accurate as working memory for the color of a single item seen 1 s ago. In particular, we show that repetition greatly improves long-term memory, including the ability to discriminate an item from a very similar item (fidelity), in both a lab setting (Experiments 1-3) and a naturalistic setting (brand logos, Experiment 4). Overall, our results demonstrate the impressive nature of visual long-term memory fidelity, which we find is even higher fidelity than previously indicated in situations involving repetitions. Furthermore, our results suggest that there is no distinction between the fidelity of visual working memory and visual long-term memory, but instead both memory systems are capable of storing similar incredibly high-fidelity memories under the right circumstances. Our results also provide further evidence that there is no fundamental distinction between the "precision" of memory and the "likelihood of retrieving a memory," instead suggesting a single continuous measure of memory strength best accounts for working and long-term memory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).