The role of imagery in memory: On shared and distinctive information.

Marschark, Marc; Richman, Charles L.; Yuille, John C.; Hunt, R. Reed

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.28

Cited by 80 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found no differences in distance estimates between instructions to image and instructions to remember, consistent with Anderson's (1978) suggestion that coded episodes could be described equally well as images or as memories, and also consistent with views suggesting functional equivalence at some level of memory and imagery (see Marschark, Richman, Yuille, & Hunt, 1987).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH) was examined for remembered and imaged stimuli. In Experiment 1, subjects gave remembered and imaged distances of familiar objects and imaged distance of nondescript rods. The relationship between stated size and distance is more adequately described by power functions with exponents less than 1 than by the more restricted SDIH (exponent of 1). In Experiment 2, subjects gave distance estimates to recalled and imaged familiar objects and described the visual context in which each object was situated. A different group then sorted the contexts into categories based on general similarity. There were no significant differences between distance estimates based on memory and those based on imagery, and the visual contexts were not sorted according to whether they were generated in the memory or in the imagery conditions. In Experiment 3, subjects estimated the distances to objects in an outdoor setting. A linear relationship was found between estimated and physical distance, suggesting that the lower exponents obtained in Experiments 1 and 2 were not artifacts of the distance judgment procedure.The authors thank Jarnshed Bharucha, Julian Hochberg, Margaret Jean Intons-Peterson, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to John C. Baird, Department of Psychology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755.The visual angle at overflow, cf> in Equation 1, is taken to be a constant for each subject and each class of stimuli. (Note that if Sand D are specified, this is a one-parameter model, and that in Equation lb the y-intercept of the function is zero.) The maximum size of the imaged visual angle is not constant, however, as shown by the wide range of values (13°to 50°) that Kosslyn (1978) obtained for different classes of objects. The SDIH appears to be satisfied, but different linear functions (slopes in Equation I) hold for different categories of objects. More importantly, the visual angle calculated along the best fitting function for a particular class does not remain constant when largerIn the course of examining the cognitive resources utilized in visual imagery, Kosslyn (1978) measured the maximum extent of the visual field used in visual imagery. He found a linear relationship between the stated size of a familiar object and the minimum distance at which the entire object could be portrayed in an image. This distance, the point at which an imaged object overflowed, was taken to delineate the maximum visual angle (boundaries) of the "mind's eye." Such a result suggests that the "imaged" relationship between known size and distance agrees with the size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH): for a fixed visual angle (cf», the ratio of perceived size (S) to perceived distance (D) of an object in real space is constant: tan e = SID D = S/tancf>.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One way to increase the probability of successful retrieval from SM (i.e., the efficiency of the search through SM) is through the use of encoding strategies. Strategies may aid retrieval because they create a more distinctive trace for a particular set of to-be-remembered items in SM (Marschark, Richman, Yuille, & Hunt, 1987). Consider some of the tasks used by Mogle et al (2008) and Unsworth et al (2009) to measure SM: word recognition, free recall, and paired-associate recall.…”

Section: The Role Of Strategy Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of strategy use to performance on complex and simple span tasks

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple and complex span tasks are widely thought to measure related but separable memory constructs. Recently, however, research has demonstrated that simple and complex span tasks may tap, in part, the same construct because both similarly predict performance on measures of fluid intelligence (Gf) when the number of items retrieved from secondary memory (SM) is equated (Unsworth & Engle, Journal of Memory and Language 54:68-80 2006). Two studies (n = 105 and n = 152) evaluated whether retrieval from SM is influenced by individual differences in the use of encoding strategies during span tasks. Results demonstrated that, after equating the number of items retrieved from SM, simple and complex span performance similarly predicted Gf performance, but rates of effective strategy use did not mediate the span-Gf relationships. Moreover, at the level of individual differences, effective strategy use was more highly related to complex span performance than to simple span performance. Thus, even though individual differences in effective strategy use influenced span performance on trials that required retrieval from SM, strategic behavior at encoding cannot account for the similarities between simple and complex span tasks.

show abstract

“…One is that aperform mode of encoding induces the extraction of relational aspects and enhances interactive, unitary coding (see Marschark, Richman, Yuille, & Hunt, 1987). Another is that to-be-performed tasks are more likely to induce encoding with respect to the self than are to-berecalled tasks (see Greenwald, 1981).…”

Section: Encoding Strategies Vary With Expected Mode Of Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the nature of the representation underlying memory for future tasks such as calling the doctor or buying milk? If this representation consists of a verbal instruction that is translated into action at the time ofretrieval, then memory should be better when tested via verbatim recall of the instruction than when tested via actual performance. Three experiments rejected this possibility, indicating better memory for a perform mode of report than for a recall mode of report. This was true in Experiment 1 in which subjects saw aseries of verbal instructions (e.g., "move the eraser," "lift the cup," "touch the ashtray"), with advance information regarding the mode of report required during testing. In Experiment 2, the advance cue was valid only in 75% of the trials. Memory depended more heavily on the expected mode of report than on the actual mode of report, suggesting that the perform superiority is due to processes that occur during encoding. In Experiment 3, subjects learned 20 phrases depicting minitasks. More tasks were remembered by subjects tested via performance than by subjects tested via verbatim recall. A second part of Experiment 3 also indicated superior memory when aperform test was expected, regardless of which mode of report was actually required. The results were compared with the finding that subject-performed tasks are better remembered than are their verbal instructions, which suggests that the representation underlying memory for future assignments may take advantage ofthe imaginal-enactive properties ofthe envisaged acts. Other possible differences between memory for to-be-recalled tasks and memory for to-be-performed tasks are discussed.In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the study of memory for action. Much of this research has centered on the memory for past activities (e.g., Anderson, 1984;Backman, Nilsson, & Chalom, 1986;Cohen, 1981Cohen, , 1983Johnson, 1988;Kausler & Hakami, 1983;Koriat, Ben-Zur, & Sheffer, 1988). However, there are many instances in everyday life in which what we have to remember is not an act that we have already accomplished but one that has to be performed in the future. In some instances, the information pertaining to future acts must be retained for only a short interval. For example, when preparing a new dish on the basis of a written recipe, a person often has to retain aseries of specific directions in short-term memory before carrying them out. A sirnilar process occurs when one consults an operating manual in an attempt to install or operate new equipment. In other instances, memory for to-be-performed activities must extend over longer time intervals, as when a waiter must rememberThe study was conducted at the Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, University of Haifa. We are grateful to Alan Baddeley, Johannes Engelkamp, Margaret Intons-Peterson, and Norman Slamecka for their comments on an earlier version. We wish to thank Shiri Pearlman, Hamutal Pines, and Michal Sion for their help in setting up and conducting ...

show abstract

The role of imagery in memory: On shared and distinctive information.

Cited by 80 publications

References 122 publications

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

Contribution of strategy use to performance on complex and simple span tasks

Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About