Spatial and temporal processing in the auditory and visual modalities

Metcalfe, Janet; Glavanov, Doris; Murdock, Martha

doi:10.3758/bf03197559

Cited by 43 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some have disputed this claim (e.g., Handel, 1988), many have argued that the visual modality is better at processing spatial information, whereas the auditory modality is more sensitive to temporal information-a view that Glenberg and Swanson (1986) have termed the temporal distinctiveness theory. In support, Metcalfe, Glavanov, and Murdock (1981) reported that auditory stimuli are better recalled by temporal order but that visual stimuli are better recalled by spatial location. In the processing of pattern information, auditory rhythms are learned at a faster rate (Handel & Buffardi, 1968) and are better remembered (Glenberg & Jona, 1991;Glenberg, Mann, Altman, Forman, & Procise, 1989) than visual rhythms.…”

Section: Temporal Processing In the Auditory Versus Visual Modalitiessupporting

confidence: 66%

Duration judgments of naturalistic events in the auditory and visual modalities

Boltz

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Temporal Processing In the Auditory Versus Visual Modalitiessupporting

confidence: 66%

Duration judgments of naturalistic events in the auditory and visual modalities

Boltz

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Converging evidence for a temporal-distinctiveness theory of recency comes from a study that showed that temporal information is more faithfully represented given verbal rather than orthographic item presentations (Metcalfe, Glavanov, & Murdock, 1981). Although this study has been interpreted as showing that the auditory modality offers finer grain temporal encodings than the visual modality, it might be more prudent to conclude that the temporal characteristics of typical auditory stimuli are better represented in memory than are the temporal characteristics of typical visual stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Enhanced recency effects with changing-state and primary-linguistic stimuli

Kallman

Cameron

1989

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of explanations for the modality effect in immediate serial recall have been proposed. The auditory advantage for recall of recency items has been explained in terms of (1) the contributions of precategorical acoustic storage (PAS), (2) an advantage of changing-state over static stimuli, and (3) an advantage of primary-linguistic coding. Four experiments were conducted to evaluate these hypotheses. In the first, subjects viewed seven consecutive rectangles of different colors on a computer monitor. A small recency effect was obtained when the task was to recall the colors of the rectangles in order, with the size of the effect being independent of whether the rectangles remained stationary on the screen or moved in one offour directions. However, when the task was to recall the direction of movement of the rectangles, a larger recency effect was found. This pattern of results was interpreted as suggesting that recency effects are enhanced by changing-state stimulus information, but only when the changing-state information serves to identify the stimulus. Experiments 2 and 3 provided converging evidence by demonstrating an analogous recency advantage for changing-state visual stimuli that were somewhat different from those of Experiment 1. Experiment 4 demonstrated recency effects with synthesized speech stimuli that were substantially greater than were those found with the changing-state visual stimuli of the first three experiments. Implications of the results for the PAS, changing-state, and primary-linguistic hypotheses, as well as temporal-distinctiveness theories of recency, are discussed.When subjects perform immediate serial recall of lists that are presented auditorily, recency effects are found. In contrast, if the lists are presented visually, recency is usually small or nonexistent. Crowder and Morton (1969) explained this modality effect by assuming that, with auditory presentations, information about the last list item is maintained in precategorical acoustic storage (PAS), and that PAS persists longer than does the corresponding visual storage. Accordingly, auditory presentation leads to more accurate recall of the last item of a list, because information held in PAS, as well as in other memory stores, can be used to aid recall. However, if the last item of an auditory list is followed by an auditory suffix (i.e., a redundant auditory item that is not to be recalled), recency diminishes or disappears altogether, presumably because the suffix masks the last list item in PAS (Crowder, 1978). There are then two central components of the PAS account of this modality effect: (1) auditory storage persists longer than does visual storage and, (2) an auditory suffix interferes with recall of the last item of an auditory list.Recent fmdings have challenged Crowder and Morton's PAS explanation of modality effects by demonstrating that robust recency and suffix effects can be found with well-

show abstract

“…There is good evidence that processing of temporal and spatial information is modality-specific, in the sense that temporal information is best processed through hearing and spatial information is best processed through vision. For example, the temporal order of a set of stimuli is better remembered when the stimuli are auditory and the spatial order is better remembered when the stimuli are visual (Metcalfe, Glavanov, & Murdock, 1981;O'Connor & Hermelin, 1978). A consequence of this modality specificity is that, as was suggested by Glenberg and Swanson (1988), recency differences between modalities may reflect a more fine-tuned encoding of temporal information for auditory presentation than for visual presentation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Is there a modality effect? Evidence for visual recency and suffix effects

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, four groups of 16 subjeets performed ordered recall of six-syllable lists in both suffix and nonsuffix conditions. Sequential presentation of the lists varied for eaeh group. In the auditory presentation, the syllables were delivered from one location only and were read aloud by the subjects. For the visual, spatially nondistributed presentation, the syllables appeared in one loeation only and were read silently. For visual, spatially distributed presentations, the syllables were spread out either vertically or horizontally and were read silently. Very robust receney and auffix effects were found in the auditory presentation, as well as in visual, spatially distributed presentations. In Experiment 2, 16 subjeets performed ordered reeall of visually presented lists with the items spread out vertieally and eonflicting spatial and temporal orders. A reliable receney effect was found for the final block oftrials. In Experiment 3,16 subjeets performed ordered recall in the same eonditions as in Experiment 2, exeept that they were instructed to reeall the temporal order in whieh the spatial positions would be filled in. A bow-shaped eurve and a strong reeency effeet were obtained.In the immediate ordered reeall of a list of items presented one at a time, recall of the last one or two items is better following auditory presentation than following visual presentation. This larger recency effect for auditory presentation than for visual presentation, known as the modality effect, is reduced or abolished when an extra item, a suffix, follows the end of the list (the suffix effect). Until relatively recently, these effects were believed to be well explained by Crowder and Morton's (1969) model of sensory memory (precategorical acoustic storage, or PAS). According to the PAS model, auditory information persists longer in an auditory sensory store than does visual information in a visual sensory store. The sensory, or eehoic, traee of a heard list would therefore provide an additional souree of information for recall of the last item(s). In contrast, the sensory, or iconic, trace of a seen list, being of much shorter duration, cannot provide extra information. When a suffix is added, it interferes with information about the last item(s) within the aeoustic storage and thereby subtraets the additional source of information.In recent years, results that are not consistent with the PAS model have been accumulating. Modality and suffix effects have been found in many conditions in which no auditory information is available. A modality effect is ob-

show abstract

Spatial and temporal processing in the auditory and visual modalities

Abstract: The authors would especiallylike to thank Bennet B.Murdock, Jr., for his encouragement. Eric Eich contributed many thoughtful comments.

Cited by 43 publications

References 22 publications

Duration judgments of naturalistic events in the auditory and visual modalities

Duration judgments of naturalistic events in the auditory and visual modalities

Enhanced recency effects with changing-state and primary-linguistic stimuli

Is there a modality effect? Evidence for visual recency and suffix effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About