In the present study, we examined whether individual differences in imaging ability affect visual word recognition. Poor and vivid imagers performed a naming task that involved nonreversed (e.g., JUMP) and reversed (e.g., PMUJ) words (Experiment 1). Poor and vivid imagers were also tested on a naming task that was controlled for verbal ability; all the words were reversed and presentation time was varied (Experiment 2). In both experiments, imaging ability interacted with task difficulty, suggesting that individual differences in imaging ability affect visual word recognition. Specifically, the present data suggest that poor imagers may be less efficient than vivid imagers at processing words analytically. The data are interpreted within a limited-capacity, hybrid, word recognition model, in which words can be processed as either word-level or letter-level codes.It has been demonstrated in a number of studies that subjects' imaging ability affects perceptual and cognitive performance. For example, Wallace (1988) had subjects participate in a visual search task in which they were asked to find embedded objects within pictorial scenes. In general, vivid imagers (as judged by performance on the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire, or VVIQ; Marks, 1973) performed the task better than poor imagers.Vivid imagers also perform better on a gestalt closure task. Wallace (1990) required subjects to identify fragmented stimuli in the Closure Speed Test (Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1966) and in the Street Test (Street, 1931). The greatest number of correct closures was reported by vivid imagers. Also, Wallace ( 1991b) examined proofreading accuracy as a function of imaging ability. Six one-page passages from various texts were prepared in such a way that each contained 26 misspelled words. A misspelled word was produced by substituting a middleposition letter with another letter of either similar or dissimilar shape. The subjects who were judged to be vivid imagers made fewer proofreading errors than did the poor imagers. This effect was qualified by an interaction between imaging ability and letter similarity. When the substitute letter had a shape that was similar to the letter it replaced, the poor imagers made more errors than did the vivid imagers. However, when the substitute letter was dissimilar to the letter it replaced, there were no This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Research Grant AG09282 to the first author. We thank Geoffrey Loftus, Lester Krueger, Peter Dixon, and one anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Also, we thank Tim Weber and Therese Finnan for technical assistance. Address correspondence to P. Allen, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, Euclid Ave. at East 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115 (e-mail: p.allen@csuohio.edu). differences in proofreading accuracy across imaging ability.In essence, these studies have shown that vivid imagers are more adept in performing a variety of tasks. This may be partly because poor imagers app...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.