{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016814159292035398, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.180327868852459, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Partial report and other sampling procedures overestimate the duration of iconic memory.

In three experiments, subjects estimated the duration of a brief visual image (iconic memory) either directly by adjusting onset of a click to offset of the visual image, or indirectly with a Sperling partial report (sampling) procedure. The results indicated that partial report and other sampling procedures may reflect other brief phenomena along with iconic memory. First, the partial report procedure yields a greater estimate of the duration of iconic memory than the more direct click method. Second, the partial report estimate of the duration of iconic memory is affected if the subject is required to simultaneously retain a list of distractor items (memory load), while the click method estimate of the duration of iconic memory is not affected by a memory load. Finally, another sampling procedure based on visual cuing yields different estimates of the duration of iconic memory depending on how many items are cued. It was concluded that partial report and other sampling procedures overestimate the duration of iconic memory.