Evidence is accumulating that the classic two-stage model of visual STM (VSTM), comprising iconic memory (IM) and visual working memory (WM), is incomplete. A third memory stage, termed fragile VSTM (FM), seems to exist in between IM and WM [Vandenbroucke, A. R. E., Sligte, I. G., & Lamme, V. A. F. Manipulations of attention dissociate fragile visual STM from visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1559–1568, 2011; Sligte, I. G., Scholte, H. S., & Lamme, V. A. F. Are there multiple visual STM stores? PLoS One, 3, e1699, 2008]. Although FM can be distinguished from IM using behavioral and fMRI methods, the question remains whether FM is a weak expression of WM or a separate form of memory with its own neural signature. Here, we tested whether FM and WM in humans are supported by dissociable time–frequency features of EEG recordings. Participants performed a partial-report change detection task, from which individual differences in FM and WM capacity were estimated. These individual FM and WM capacities were correlated with time–frequency characteristics of the EEG signal before and during encoding and maintenance of the memory display. FM capacity showed negative alpha correlations over peri-occipital electrodes, whereas WM capacity was positively related, suggesting increased visual processing (lower alpha) to be related to FM capacity. Furthermore, FM capacity correlated with an increase in theta power over central electrodes during preparation and processing of the memory display, whereas WM did not. In addition to a difference in visual processing characteristics, a positive relation between gamma power and FM capacity was observed during both preparation and maintenance periods of the task. On the other hand, we observed that theta–gamma coupling was negatively correlated with FM capacity, whereas it was slightly positively correlated with WM. These data show clear differences in the neural substrates of FM versus WM and suggest that FM depends more on visual processing mechanisms compared with WM. This study thus provides novel evidence for a dissociation between different stages in VSTM.

Every day, we experience a rich and complex visual world. Our brain constantly translates meaningless fragmented input into coherent objects and scenes. However, our attentional capabilities are limited, and we can only report the few items that we happen to attend to. So what happens to items that are not cognitively accessed? Do these remain fragmentary and meaningless? Or are they processed up to a level where perceptual inferences take place about image composition? To investigate this, we recorded brain activity using fMRI while participants viewed images containing a Kanizsa figure, an illusion in which an object is perceived by means of perceptual inference. Participants were presented with the Kanizsa figure and three matched nonillusory control figures while they were engaged in an attentionally demanding distractor task. After the task, one group of participants was unable to identify the Kanizsa figure in a forced-choice decision task; hence, they were “inattentionally blind.” A second group had no trouble identifying the Kanizsa figure. Interestingly, the neural signature that was unique to the processing of the Kanizsa figure was present in both groups. Moreover, within-subject multivoxel pattern analysis showed that the neural signature of unreported Kanizsa figures could be used to classify reported Kanizsa figures and that this cross-report classification worked better for the Kanizsa condition than for the control conditions. Together, these results suggest that stimuli that are not cognitively accessed are processed up to levels of perceptual interpretation.