» Articles » PMID: 11515286

The Magical Number 4 in Short-term Memory: a Reconsideration of Mental Storage Capacity

Overview
Journal Behav Brain Sci
Date 2001 Aug 23
PMID 11515286
Citations 1464
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Miller (1956) summarized evidence that people can remember about seven chunks in short-term memory (STM) tasks. However, that number was meant more as a rough estimate and a rhetorical device than as a real capacity limit. Others have since suggested that there is a more precise capacity limit, but that it is only three to five chunks. The present target article brings together a wide variety of data on capacity limits suggesting that the smaller capacity limit is real. Capacity limits will be useful in analyses of information processing only if the boundary conditions for observing them can be carefully described. Four basic conditions in which chunks can be identified and capacity limits can accordingly be observed are: (1) when information overload limits chunks to individual stimulus items, (2) when other steps are taken specifically to block the recording of stimulus items into larger chunks, (3) in performance discontinuities caused by the capacity limit, and (4) in various indirect effects of the capacity limit. Under these conditions, rehearsal and long-term memory cannot be used to combine stimulus items into chunks of an unknown size; nor can storage mechanisms that are not capacity-limited, such as sensory memory, allow the capacity-limited storage mechanism to be refilled during recall. A single, central capacity limit averaging about four chunks is implicated along with other, noncapacity-limited sources. The pure STM capacity limit expressed in chunks is distinguished from compound STM limits obtained when the number of separately held chunks is unclear. Reasons why pure capacity estimates fall within a narrow range are discussed and a capacity limit for the focus of attention is proposed.

Citing Articles

Single-session gamma sensory stimulation entrains real-time electroencephalography but does not enhance perception, attention, short-term memory, or long-term memory.

Wu C, Lin T, Lo Y, Ke S, Sahu P, Tseng P J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2025; 9:25424823241311927.

PMID: 40034515 PMC: 11864247. DOI: 10.1177/25424823241311927.


Assessing individual differences in grouping strategy in visual working memory.

Lin Y, Leber A Atten Percept Psychophys. 2025; .

PMID: 40011340 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-025-03013-w.


A Pilot Study on Video Game Training Effects on Visual Working Memory: Behavioral and Neural Insights.

Alfaro-Cortes H, Torres-Ramos S, Roman-Godinez I, Ruiz-Stovel V, Salido-Ruiz R Brain Sci. 2025; 15(2).

PMID: 40002486 PMC: 11852622. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci15020153.


Representational geometry explains puzzling error distributions in behavioral tasks.

Wei X, Woodford M Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025; 122(4):e2407540122.

PMID: 39854237 PMC: 11789072. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2407540122.


Neural deterioration and compensation in visual short-term memory among individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

Xie Y, Zhao T, Zhang W, Chen Q, Qiu A, Li Y Alzheimers Dement. 2025; 21(2):e14475.

PMID: 39822072 PMC: 11848150. DOI: 10.1002/alz.14475.