2016
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-016-0741-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Opportunity for verbalization does not improve visual change detection performance: A state-trace analysis

Abstract: Evidence suggests that there is a tendency to verbally recode visually-presented information, and that in some cases verbal recoding can boost memory performance. According to multi-component models of working memory, memory performance is increased because task-relevant information is simultaneously maintained in two codes. The possibility of dual encoding is problematic if the goal is to measure capacity for visual information exclusively. To counteract this possibility, articulatory suppression is frequentl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
31
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
3
31
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, Smyth and colleagues (2005), using a serial-reconstruction task with unfamiliar faces as visual stimuli, found a clear decrease of performance due to AS. Our finding of a pronounced detrimental effect of AS stands in contrast with the well-established absence of any such effect in the change detection paradigm for testing visual WM (C. C. Morey & Cowan, 2004;Sense, Morey, Prince, Heathcote, & Morey, 2017). The change detection paradigm differs from the present experiment in three important ways: It involves a different kind of test-comparison of a probe to a memory array, rather than reproduction of a memory item; it does not demand memory for serial order; and it involves only a single test.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, Smyth and colleagues (2005), using a serial-reconstruction task with unfamiliar faces as visual stimuli, found a clear decrease of performance due to AS. Our finding of a pronounced detrimental effect of AS stands in contrast with the well-established absence of any such effect in the change detection paradigm for testing visual WM (C. C. Morey & Cowan, 2004;Sense, Morey, Prince, Heathcote, & Morey, 2017). The change detection paradigm differs from the present experiment in three important ways: It involves a different kind of test-comparison of a probe to a memory array, rather than reproduction of a memory item; it does not demand memory for serial order; and it involves only a single test.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…The usefulness of such representations may vary depending on how feature memory is probed, and it is unclear whether similar effects would be observed using change detection or other paradigms. For instance, Sense, Morey, Prince, Heathcote, and Morey (2017) observed that verbalization did not improve visual change detection performance in younger adults.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vogel, Woodman, & Luck, 2001) or by asking participants to articulate irrelevant words continuously (aka. articulatory suppression) has no impact on performance (Morey & Cowan, 2004, 2005Sense, Morey, Prince, Heathcote, & Morey, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%