The relation between visual imagery mediators and recall

Abstract

Three hypotheses are discussed as explanations for the result that pairs of concrete nouns are more easily remembered than are pairs of abstract nouns: the imagery hypothesis, the familiarity hypothesis, and the concreteness hypothesis. Two experiments are reported in which the degree of visual imagery associated with the components of paired associate items was not indicative of the degree of visual imagery experienced during their learning or with the accuracy with which they were recalled. It was found that pairs of related abstract nouns were rated higher in imagery and familiarity than were pairs of unrelated concrete nouns, but recall of the higher imagery pairs was poorer. The concreteness hypothesis is discussed as the best explanation for the results. The concreteness hypothesis proposes that people learn to associate the labels of concrete objects by using their real-world knowledge of the potential relations between categories of objects. Dual coding theory and schema theory are also discussed as explanations for mediation learning, and the issue of visual imagery as an epiphenomenon is addressed.

Reference Note

  1. Bellezza, F. S., & Day, J. C.The alphabet mnemonic and visual imagery mediation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia, Penn, November 1981.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, R. C. Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In A. Lesgold, J. Pellegrino, S. Fokkema, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Cognitive psychology and instruction. New York: Plenum, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bobrow, D. G., &Norman, D. A. Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.),Representation and understanding. New York: Academic Press, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bower, G. H. Mental imagery and associative learning. In L. Gregg (Ed.),Cognition in learning and memory. New York: Wiley, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Horowitz, L. M., &Prytulak, L. S. Redintegrative memory.Psychological Review, 1969,76, 519–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jonides, J., Kahn, R., &Rozin, P. Imagery instructions improve memory in blind subjects.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,5, 424–426.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kirk, R. E. Experimental design procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kosslyn, S. M. Image and Mind. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kosslyn, S. M., &Pomerantz, J. R. Imagery, propositions, and the form of internal representations.Cognitive Psychology, 1977,9, 52–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Minsky, M. A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.),The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Montague, W. F. Elaborative strategies in verbal learning and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 6), New York: Academic Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Neisser, U. Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Paivio, A. Mental imagery in associative learning.Psychological Review, 1969,76, 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Paivio, A. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Paivio, A. Images, propositions, and knowledge. In J. M. Nichols (Ed.),Images, perception, and knowledge. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Paivio, A. A dual coding approach to perception and cognition. In H. L. Pick, Jr., & E. Saltzman (Eds.),Models of perceiving and processing information. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 1968,76(1, Pt. 2).

  18. Palmer, S. E. Visual perception and world knowledge: Notes on a model of sensory-cognitive interaction. In D. A. Norman & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.),Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pylyshyn, Z. W. What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery.Psychological Bulletin, 1973,80, 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rumelhart, D. E. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rumelhart, D. E., &Ortony, A. The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.),Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ryle, G. The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schank, R. C. Language and memory.Cognitive Science, 1980,4, 243–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. P. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Toglia, M. P., &Battig, W. F. Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thorndike, E. L., &Lorge, I. The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wollen, K. A., Weber, A., &Lowry, D. H. Bizarreness versus interaction of mental images as determinants of learning.Cognitive Psychology, 1972,3, 518–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis S. Bellezza.

Additional information

This research was supported in part by a grant to the second author by the Field-Wiltsie Foundation.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.

About this article

Cite this article

Day, J.C., Bellezza, F.S. The relation between visual imagery mediators and recall. Memory & Cognition 11, 251–257 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196971

Download citation

Keywords

  • Word Pair
  • Visual Imagery
  • Composite Image
  • Concrete Object
  • Blind Subject