Recognition memory of preschool children for pictures and words

Corsini, David A.; Jacobus, Kenneth A.; Leonard, S. David

doi:10.3758/bf03336372

Cited by 53 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perlmutter and Myers (1976) found that 2½-to 5-year-old children performed significantly better on a recognition memory task with picture lists than word lists. Corsini, Jacobus, and Leonard (1969) observed the same effect with 4½-to 6-year-old children. Jenkins, Stack, and Deno (1969) found that second graders performed at a higher level in a pictorial recognition task than in a word recognition task.…”

Section: Recognitionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Imagery and Children’s Learning: Putting the Picture in Developmental Perspective

Pressley

1977

Review of Educational Research

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Recognitionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Imagery and Children’s Learning: Putting the Picture in Developmental Perspective

Pressley

1977

Review of Educational Research

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When given recognition tasks, in which the information present during acquisition is also available during testing, even young preschool children demonstrate good retention (e.g., Brown & Campione 1972;Brown & Scott 1971;Corsini, Jacobus, & Leonard 1969;Perlmutter & Myers 1974). In contrast, when given free recall tasks, in which little of the information present during acquisition is present during testing, even older preschool children perform poorly (e.g., Perlmutter & Myers 1979;Perlmutter & Ricks 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Semantic and Contextual Cuing of Preschool Children's Recall

Perlmutter¹,

Sophian²,

Mitchell³

et al. 1981

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3 experiments were carried out to investigate cuing of young children's recall. In each experiment younger (3 years) and older (4 1/2 years) preschool children were tested on free and cued recall tasks in which the presence of semantic and contextual cues was manipulated. In the first 2 experiments there was little evidence that the children's recall was facilitated by presence of contextual cues, independent of the facilitation produced by semantic information. In the third experiment, context and target items were integrated experimentally at presentation. In this case, unrelated context cues improved recall. This finding suggests that limitations in the facilitatory effects of context cues for preschool children are related to the ways these young children initially encode target and context items. In all 3 experiments semantic cues aided both younger and older children's recall. Moreover, there was evidence of a developmental increase in the effectiveness of semantic, but not contextual, cues. This finding highlights the importance of growth of the semantic knowledge base for early memory development.

show abstract

“…Bias scores in Experiment II revealed that subjects adopted a more lenient criterion in responding to words than to pictures, and increased leniency was noted for both item types over time. Explanations of the results are offered in terms of differences in initial encoding and of a loss of discrimination between experimental and extraexperimental materials.Recognition memory has been shown to be better for pictures than for words up to retention intervals of about 2 weeks (Bloom, 1971;Corsini, Jacobus, & Leonard, 1969;Davies, 1969;Jenkins, Neale, & Deno, 1967;Shepard, 1967). One purpose of the present studies was to obtain information concerning' pictorial and verbal recognition memory over a longer period of time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recognition memory has been shown to be better for pictures than for words up to retention intervals of about 2 weeks (Bloom, 1971;Corsini, Jacobus, & Leonard, 1969;Davies, 1969;Jenkins, Neale, & Deno, 1967;Shepard, 1967). One purpose of the present studies was to obtain information concerning' pictorial and verbal recognition memory over a longer period of time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition memory for words and pictures at short and long retention intervals

1976

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, subjects studied a long series of words and pictures for recognition. Retention intervals varied from several minutes to a few months. The complicated testing procedures in Experiment I required the use of a traditional correction for guessing to obtain estimates of subjects' memory performance. A comparable, but simpler, design in Experiment II permitted the calculation of sensitivity and bias measures. In both studies, pictorial memory was superior to verbal memory at all retention intervals tested, and this advantage was essentially constant over time. In addition, the experiments identified an increasing tendency to call verbal test items "old" over time. Bias scores in Experiment II revealed that subjects adopted a more lenient criterion in responding to words than to pictures, and increased leniency was noted for both item types over time. Explanations of the results are offered in terms of differences in initial encoding and of a loss of discrimination between experimental and extraexperimental materials.Recognition memory has been shown to be better for pictures than for words up to retention intervals of about 2 weeks (Bloom, 1971;Corsini, Jacobus, & Leonard, 1969;Davies, 1969;Jenkins, Neale, & Deno, 1967;Shepard, 1967). One purpose of the present studies was to obtain information concerning' pictorial and verbal recognition memory over a longer period of time. To this end, picture and word recognition were compared for intervals ranging from 10 min to 3 months in Experiment I and from 15 min to 2 months in Experiment II.A further purpose of Experiment I was to determine whether qualitative changes in memory occur at long retention intervals. Conceivably, changes might occur in· the direction of a more highly generalized representation of the materials (Bartlett, 1932; Carmichael, Hogan, & Walters, 1932). As probes for such changes, recognition test items in Experiment I included: (a) verbal synonyms of study items, (b) pictorial synonyms, (c) pictorial representations of study words, and (d) nouns describing study pictures, as well as repeated items and unrelated filler items.The use of the various types of test cue proved unnecessary as it turned out. The results showed that the retention curves for pictorial and verbal materials Experiment I reports the results of a dissertation submitted by the first author in 1973 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree at the University of Colorado. The author gratefully acknowledges comments, help, and advice from Stephen J. Young and from the members of his dissertation committee: Gregory A. Kimble, Bruce R. Ekstrand, Walter Kintsch, Eugene S. Gollin, and Verne C. Keenan. This work was sponsored in part by NIMH Grant MG 19577 and by NSF Grant GB 34077 X. Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert E. Gehring, Department of Psychology, Indiana State University Evansville. 8600 University Boulevard, Evansville. Indiana 47712.were essentially the same over time regardless of the type of test cue.Experiment II replicates...

show abstract

Recognition memory of preschool children for pictures and words

Cited by 53 publications

References 4 publications

Imagery and Children’s Learning: Putting the Picture in Developmental Perspective

Imagery and Children’s Learning: Putting the Picture in Developmental Perspective

Semantic and Contextual Cuing of Preschool Children's Recall

Recognition memory for words and pictures at short and long retention intervals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About