Comprehension and memory for pictures

Bower, Gordon H.; Karlin, Martin B.; Dueck, Alvin

doi:10.3758/bf03212900

Cited by 144 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect holds for words (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), faces (Bower & Karlin, 1974;Warrington & Ackroyd, 1975), colors (Brown & Lenneberg, 1954), complex forms (Clark, 1965;Daniel & Ellis, 1972), environmental sounds (Bartlett, 1977), pictures (Bower, Karlin, & Dueck, 1975;Freedman & Haber, 1974), and now odors (Rabin & Cain, 1984). The present experiment extends this knowledge by showing that short-term odor recognition may also benefit from semantic encoding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Interference and facilitation in short-term memory for odors

Walk

Johns

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated short-term memory for odors using a four-alternative, forced-choiced recognition paradigm. Stimuli were the odors of 36 common food substances. Twelve subjects were tested in each offour conditions, which differed in the activity performed during the retention interval. Recognition performance was poorest when subjects free associated to an additional odorant presented during the retention interval. Thus, interference from interpolated events does occur in odor memory. Recognition performance was best when the subjects free associated to the name of the target odorant during the retention interval. Thus, the memory code for odors may incorporate semantic information. Remembering odors appears, therefore, to be governed by the same principles as remembering stimuli in other modalities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Interference and facilitation in short-term memory for odors

Walk

Johns

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sixty years ago, Carmichael, Hogan, and Walter (1932) demonstrated that reproductions of visually presented figures were affected by the labels given to the figures (see also Bower, Karlin, & Dueck, 1975;Daniel, 1972). More recently there have been several demonstrations of the effects of nonspatial semantic relations (e.g., "knife-fork") on the structure of spatial memories (e.g., Hirtle & Mascolo, 1986;McNamara & Lesueur, 1989;Sadalla, Staplin, & Burroughs, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The representation and integration in memory of spatial and nonspatial information

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments investigated whether people could integrate nonspatial information about an object with their knowledge of the object's location in space. In Experiments 1 and 3, subjects learned the locations of cities on a fictitious road map; in Experiments 2, 4, and 5, subjects were already familiar with the locations of buildings on a campus. The subjects then learned facts about the cities on the maps or the buildings on the campus. The question of interest was whether or not these nonspatial facts would be integrated in memory with the spatial knowledge. After learning the facts, subjects were given a location-judgment test in which they had to decide whether an object was in one region of the space or another. Knowledge integration was assessed by comparing levels of performance in two conditions: (a) when a city or a building name was primed by a fact about a neighboring city or building, and (b) when a city or a building name was primed by a fact about a distant city or building. Results showed that responses in Condition a were faster or more accurate, or both faster and more accurate, than responses in Condition b. These results indicate that the spatial and nonspatial information were encoded in a common memory representation.When people learn the locations of objects in an environment, they typically acquire nonspatial information about the objects. For example, as students learn the locations of buildings on a campus, they also may learn which departments are housed in which buildings, the relative ages of the buildings, and whether or not a building's architectural style is pleasing. Indeed, as this example suggests, our spatial experiences with objects in an environment are often determined by both nonspatial and spatial properties of the objects.The goal of the research described in this paper was to determine whether people could integrate nonspatial information about an object with their knowledge of the object's location in space. Specifically, participants in these experiments first learned a spatial layout, either a map or a real college campus, and then learned nonspatial verbal facts about cities on the map or buildings on the campus (e.g., "The city Sedona is noted for computer manufacturing" or "Alumni Hall is named for alumni who died in World War I"). Memories of maps and of natural environments are known to support diverse spatial behaviors, including image scanning (e.g

show abstract

“…The elaboration interpretation is weakened, however, by the lackof evidence that contextclearly and consistently benefits recognition memory of ambiguous material (Alba et al, 1981;Birnbaum, Johnson, Hartley, & Taylor, 1980;Bower, Karlin, & Dueck, 1975). This contrastswith findings that semantic or elaborative processing can benefit recognition memory as well as free recall (Craik & Tulving, 1975;Jacoby & Craik, 1979;Jacoby & Dallas, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 60%