Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 182–193 | Cite as

Increasing word distinctiveness eliminates the picture superiority effect in recognition: Evidence for the physical-distinctiveness account

  • Tyler M. Ensor
  • Aimée M. Surprenant
  • Ian NeathEmail author
Article
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

A well-established phenomenon in the memory literature is the picture superiority effect—the finding that, all else being equal, memory is better for pictures than for words (Paivio & Csapo, 1973). Theorists have attributed pictures’ mnemonic advantage to dual coding (Paivio, 1971), conceptual distinctiveness (Hamilton & Geraci, 2006), and physical distinctiveness (Mintzer & Snodgrass, 1999). Here, we present a novel test of the physical-distinctiveness account of picture superiority: If the greater physical variability of pictures relative to words is responsible for their mnemonic benefit, then increasing the distinctiveness of words and/or reducing the physical variability of pictures should reduce or eliminate the picture superiority effect. In the present experiments we increased word distinctiveness by varying font style, font size, color, and capitalization. Additionally, in Experiment 3 we reduced the distinctiveness of pictures by presenting black-and-white pictures with similar orientations. In Experiment 4, a forced choice procedure was used in which subjects were asked to identify the form that each probe had taken during the study phase. The results were consistent with the distinctiveness prediction and, notably, were inconsistent with dual coding.

Keywords

Picture superiority effect Pictures and words Distinctiveness Dual coding Recognition memory 

References

  1. Beth, E. H., Budson, A. E., Waring, J. D., & Ally, B. A. (2009). Response bias for picture recognition in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 22, 229–235.  https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0b013e3181b7f3b1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevan, W., & Steger, J. A. (1971). Free recall and abstractness of stimuli. Science, 172, 597–599.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.172.3983.597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges, M. A., Stepnowsky, M. A., & Holt, L. H. (1977). Recall and recognition of words and pictures by adults and children. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 113–114.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bousfield, W. A., Esterson, J., & Whitmarsh, G. A. (1957). The effects of concomitant colored and uncolored pictorial representations on the learning of stimulus words. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 165–168.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chubala, C., Surprenant, A. M., Neath, I., & Quinlan, P. T. (2018). Does dynamic visual noise eliminate the concreteness effect in working memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 97–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Agostino, P. R., O’Neill, B. J., & Paivio, A. (1977). Memory for pictures and words as a function of level of processing: Depth or dual coding? Memory & Cognition, 5, 252–256.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durso, F. T., & Johnson, M. K. (1980). The effects of orienting task on recognition, recall, and modality confusion of pictures and words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 416–429.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90294-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gorman, A. M. (1961). Recognition memory for nouns as a function of abstractness and frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 23–29.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton, M., & Geraci, L. (2006). The picture superiority effect in conceptual implicit memory: A conceptual distinctiveness hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 119, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20445315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hockley, W. E. (2008). The picture superiority effect in associative recognition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1351–1359.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hockley, W. E., & Bancroft, T. (2011). Extensions of the picture superiority effect in associative recognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 236–244.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenkins, J. R., Neale, D. C., & Deno, S. L. (1967). Differential memory for picture and word stimuli. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 303–307.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, B. (1974). Response bias in the recognition of pictures and names by children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 1214–1215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McBride, D. M., & Dosher, B. A. (2002). A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: A process dissociation analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 423–460.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00007-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mintzer, M. Z., & Snodgrass, J. G. (1999). The picture superiority effect: Support for the distinctiveness model. American Journal of Psychology, 112, 113–146.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1423627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neath, I. (1997). Modality, concreteness, and set-size effects in a free reconstruction of order task. Memory & Cognition, 25, 256–263.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson, D. L. (1979). Remembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and name. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 45–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Nelson, D. L., & Reed, V. S. (1976). On the nature of pictorial encoding: A levels-of-processing analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.49 Google Scholar
  20. Nelson, D. L., Reed, V. S., & McEvoy, C. L. (1977). Learning to order pictures and words: A model of sensory and semantic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 485–497.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.3.5.485 Google Scholar
  21. Nelson, D. L., Reed, V. S., & Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 523–528.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.523 Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, T. O., Metzler, J., & Reed, D. A. (1974). Role of details in the long-term recognition of pictures and verbal descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 184–186.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8, 434–447.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paivio, A. (1967). Paired-associate learning and free recall of nouns as a function of concreteness, specificity, imagery, and meaningfulness. Psychological Reports, 20, 239–245.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1967.20.1.239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  26. Paivio, A. (1975). Coding distinctions and repetition effects in memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 9, pp. 179–214). New York, NY: Academic Press.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60271-6 Google Scholar
  27. Paivio, A. (1976). Imagery in recall and recognition. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 103–129). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 279–285.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90032-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paivio, A., Rogers, T. B., & Smythe, P. C. (1968). Why are pictures easier to recall than words? Psychonomic Science, 11, 137–138.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03331011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paivio, A., & Yarmey, A. D. (1966). Pictures versus words as stimuli and responses in paired-associate learning. Psychonomic Science, 5, 235–236.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328369
  34. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4.1). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  35. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p5117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 6, 156–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80067-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 6, 174–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174 Google Scholar
  39. Snodgrass, J. G., Volvovitz, R., & Walfish, E. R. (1972). Recognition memory for words, pictures, and words + pictures. Psychonomic Science, 27, 345–347.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sridharan, D., Steinmetz, N. A., Moore, T., & Knudsen, E. I. (2014). Distinguishing bias from sensitivity effects in multialternative detection tasks. Journal of Vision, 14(9), 16:1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1167/14.9.16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stenberg, G. (2006). Conceptual and perceptual factors in the picture superiority effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 813–847.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440500412361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker, I., & Hulme, C. (1999). Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1256–1271.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.5.1256 Google Scholar
  43. Weldon, M. S., & Coyote, K. C. (1996). Failure to find the picture superiority effect in implicit conceptual memory tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 670–686.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.670 Google Scholar
  44. Weldon, S. M., Roediger, H. L., III, & Challis, B. H. (1989). The properties of retrieval cues constrain the picture superiority effect. Memory & Cognition, 17, 95–105.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wicker, F. W. (1970). Photographs, drawings, and nouns as stimuli in paired-associate learning. Psychonomic Science, 18, 205–206.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler M. Ensor
    • 1
  • Aimée M. Surprenant
    • 1
  • Ian Neath
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations