Psychonomic Science

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 329–330 | Cite as

The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli

  • Ken F. Scapinello
  • A. Daniel Yarmey
Human Learning & Thinking Memory


The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of familiarity and changes in stimulus orientation on immediate and delayed recognition of human faces, canine faces, and buildings. Eighty Ss were assigned randomly to one of four experimental conditions: immediate or delayed recognition of stimuli presented and tested in the same orientation and immediate or delayed recognition of stimuli presented and tested in opposite orientations. Results indicated that familiar stimuli presented for seven successive inspection trials were significantly better recognized than were unfamiliar stimuli inspected only once. Recognition performance declined as a function of stimulus rotation and a 20-min delay in testing. This decline was significantly greater for human faces than for other stimuli, regardless of the recall interval used. It was concluded that increased familiarity improved recognition and that the disproportionate difficulty for rotated human faces was independent of familiarity.


Recognition Performance Stimulus Orientation Pictorial Material Pictorial Stimulus Part List 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ARNOULT, M. D. Familiarity and recognition of nonsense shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 51, 269–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DALLETT, K., WILCOX, S. G., & D’ANDREA, L. Picture memory experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 76, 312–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. GORMAN, A. M. Recognition memory for nouns as a function of abstractness and frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 61, 23–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. HENLE, M. An experimental investigation of past experiences as a determinant of visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1942, 30, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. HOCHBERG, J., & GALPER, R. G. Recognition of faces: I. An exploratory study. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9, 619–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. HOROWITZ, L. M., & PRYTULAK, L. S. Redintegrative memory. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. KÖHLER, W. Dynamics in psychology. New York: Liveright, 1940.Google Scholar
  8. NICKERSON, R. S. A note on long term recognition memory for pictorial material. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 11, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. NOBLE, C. E. The familiarity-frequency relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 47, 13–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. OLVER, M. A. Abstractness, imagery and meaningfulness in recognition and free recall. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada, 1965.Google Scholar
  11. PAIVIO, A. Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 1969, 75, 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. SHEPARD, R. N. Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. TVERSKY, A., & KRANTZ, D. H. Similarity of schematic faces: A test of interdimensional additivity. Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 124–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. YIN, R. K. Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Journals, Inc. 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ken F. Scapinello
    • 1
  • A. Daniel Yarmey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations