Revisiting the picture-superiority effect in symbolic comparisons: Do pictures provide privileged access?

Amrhein, Paul C.; McDaniel, Mark A.; Waddill, Paula J.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.5.843

Cited by 28 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(128 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results indicate that the auditory LPC occurs later (between 550 and 900 ms) than the visual LPC (which occurs between 400 and 800 ms). The latency differences between visual and auditory modalities are consistent with notion that pictures may have more rapid access to semantic networks while the auditory words must first be processed through the mental lexicon (Caramazza and Hillis, 1990; Amrhein et al, 2002; Sevostianov et al, 2002). In addition, physical features of the stimuli may contribute to the longer latencies associated with auditory word stimuli (mean duration 670 ms) compared to the visual pictures (duration 300 ms.) Crucially, however, in both visual and auditory modalities, the LPC precedes the button press response (which reflects execution of the subject's superordinate categorical decision) by the same period of time ~150 ms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Spatial and temporal features of superordinate semantic processing studied with fMRI and EEG

Costanzo

McArdle

Swett

et al. 2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationships between the anatomical representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain and the timing of neurophysiological mechanisms involved in manipulating such information remain unclear. This is the case for superordinate semantic categorization—the extraction of general features shared by broad classes of exemplars (e.g., living vs. non-living semantic categories). We proposed that, because of the abstract nature of this information, input from diverse input modalities (visual or auditory, lexical or non-lexical) should converge and be processed in the same regions of the brain, at similar time scales during superordinate categorization—specifically in a network of heteromodal regions, and late in the course of the categorization process. In order to test this hypothesis, we utilized electroencephalography and event related potentials (EEG/ERP) with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to characterize subjects' responses as they made superordinate categorical decisions (living vs. non-living) about objects presented as visual pictures or auditory words. Our results reveal that, consistent with our hypothesis, during the course of superordinate categorization, information provided by these diverse inputs appears to converge in both time and space: fMRI showed that heteromodal areas of the parietal and temporal cortices are active during categorization of both classes of stimuli. The ERP results suggest that superordinate categorization is reflected as a late positive component (LPC) with a parietal distribution and long latencies for both stimulus types. Within the areas and times in which modality independent responses were identified, some differences between living and non-living categories were observed, with a more widespread spatial extent and longer latency responses for categorization of non-living items.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Spatial and temporal features of superordinate semantic processing studied with fMRI and EEG

Costanzo

McArdle

Swett

et al. 2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mintzer & Snodgrass (1999; see also Stenberg, Radeborg, & Hedman, 1995) showed that pictures do not spontaneously evoke verbal recoding during learning. There is also evidence that enhanced semantic processing of pictures over words is unlikely (see, e.g., Amrhein, McDaniel, & Waddill, 2002;Weldon & Coyote, 1996). There is also evidence that enhanced semantic processing of pictures over words is unlikely (see, e.g., Amrhein, McDaniel, & Waddill, 2002;Weldon & Coyote, 1996).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reversing the picture superiority effect: A speed—accuracy trade-off study of recognition memory

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speed-accuracy trade-off methods have been used to contrast single- and dual-process accounts of recognition memory. With these procedures, subjects are presented with individual test items and required to make recognition decisions under various time constraints. In three experiments, we presented words and pictures to be intentionally learned; test stimuli were always visually presented words. At test, we manipulated the interval between the presentation of each test stimulus and that of a response signal, thus controlling the amount of time available to retrieve target information. The standard picture superiority effect was significant in long response deadline conditions (i.e., > or = 2,000 msec). Conversely, a significant reverse picture superiority effect emerged at short response-signal deadlines (< 200 msec). The results are congruent with views suggesting that both fast familiarity and slower recollection processes contribute to recognition memory. Alternative accounts are also discussed.

show abstract

“…One possible explanation for differences in memory performance across stimulus types is that some sounds may be more readily processed or encoded by the brain. In humans, visual perception and memory performance are enhanced using faces, pictures, and words, which are more efficiently processed and categorized during human cognition (Seifert, 1997; Amrhein et al, 2002; Bulthoff and Newell, 2006). Species-specific vocalizations may then exert functional advantages in auditory learning and memory of monkeys over other sound types.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate auditory recognition memory performance varies with sound type

Plakke

Poremba

2009

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neural correlates of auditory processing, including for species-specific vocalizations that convey biological and ethological significance (e.g. social status, kinship, environment),have been identified in a wide variety of areas including the temporal and frontal cortices. However, few studies elucidate how non-human primates interact with these vocalization signals when they are challenged by tasks requiring auditory discrimination, recognition, and/or memory. The present study employs a delayed matching-to-sample task with auditory stimuli to examine auditory memory performance of rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), wherein two sounds are determined to be the same or different. Rhesus macaques seem to have relatively poor short-term memory with auditory stimuli, and we examine if particular sound types are more favorable for memory performance. Experiment 1 suggests memory performance with vocalization sound types (particularly monkey), are significantly better than when using non-vocalization sound types, and male monkeys outperform female monkeys overall. Experiment 2, controlling for number of sound exemplars and presentation pairings across types, replicates Experiment 1, demonstrating better performance or decreased response latencies, depending on trial type, to species-specific monkey vocalizations. The findings cannot be explained by acoustic differences between monkey vocalizations and the other sound types, suggesting the biological, and/or ethological meaning of these sounds are more effective for auditory memory. KeywordsMacaca mulatta; delayed matching-to-sample; vocalizations; performance; same; different; rhesus; monkey Monkeys have difficulty in learning a delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) task requiring decisions about whether sounds match or not across memory delays (D'Amato and Colombo, 1985;Wright, 1998Wright, , 1999Fritz et al., 2005). Rhesus monkeys generally learn the rule for visual and tactile versions of this trial-unique delayed matching-and nonmatching-to-sample at short delays, within a few hundred trials (Murray and Mishkin, 1998;Buffalo et al., 1999;Zola et al., 2000), while a similar task, using auditory stimuli, takes them on average 15,000 trials to learn the rule at 5-second memory delays (Fritz et al., 2005). Auditory memory performance seems rather poor compared to using visual and tactile stimuli in similar tasks. Corresponding author and postal address for all authors: Amy Poremba, Ph.D., University of Iowa, E11 Seashore Hall, Department of Psychology, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA, amy-poremba@uiowa.edu, Office: 319-335-0372; Fax: 319-335-0191. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the conte...

show abstract

Revisiting the picture-superiority effect in symbolic comparisons: Do pictures provide privileged access?

Cited by 28 publications

References 36 publications

Spatial and temporal features of superordinate semantic processing studied with fMRI and EEG

Spatial and temporal features of superordinate semantic processing studied with fMRI and EEG

Reversing the picture superiority effect: A speed—accuracy trade-off study of recognition memory

Primate auditory recognition memory performance varies with sound type

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About