Two faces of the conceptual peg hypothesis.

Anderson, Richard C.; Goetz, Ernest T.; Pichert, James W.; Halff, Henry M.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.3.2.142

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides its function as an experimental control, counterbalancing allowed for the investigation of order effects. Consistent with the conceptual peg hypothesis of dual coding theory, the effect of presenting a concrete language unit before an abstract language unit has been found to enhance the recall of the abstract language unit in a variety of studies of reading (Anderson, Goetz, Pichert, & Halff, 1977;Corkill, Glover, & Bruning, 1988;Paivio, 1965;Royer & Cable, 1975;Sadoski et al, 1993b). An extension of the investigation of this hypothesis to effects on composing was therefore included here.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions.

Sadoski¹,

Kealy²,

Goetz³

et al. 1997

Journal of Educational Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concreteness and imagery effects have been found to be among the most powerful in explaining performance on a variety of language tasks. Concreteness and imagery effects involve the capacity of concrete language to evoke sensory images in the mind (e.g., juicy watermelon), whereas abstract language has relatively less capacity to do so (e.g., agriculturalproduce). The effects of concreteness and imagery on reading and text recall have been well-established (e.g.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions.

Sadoski¹,

Kealy²,

Goetz³

et al. 1997

Journal of Educational Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The manipulations of nouns versus nonnouns and word concreteness had a similar effect on both item recognition and associative recognition. Concrete words are typically recognized more accurately than abstract words (see, e.g., Anderson, Goetz, Pichert, & Halff, 1977;Glanzer & Adams, 1990) and, in paired-associate learning, concrete word pairs are remembered better than abstract word pairs when the members of the pairs have been related and a cue appropriate to the relationship is provided at test (Marschark & Hunt, 1989). Since nouns have higher concreteness and imagery values than nonnouns do, the memorial advantage of nouns over nonnouns is most probably an effect of word concreteness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections of the mirror effect for item and associative recognition

Hockley

1994

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In five experiments, participants studied pairs of words and yes/no recognition memory for both item and associative information was tested. Two stimulus manipulations, nouns versus nonnouns and high versus low word concreteness, produced the mirror effect for both item and associative recognition. The mirror effect was reflected in both measures of accuracy and response latency. A word frequency manipulation, however, produced the mirror effect only for item recognition. Two additional experiments showed that the mirror effect could also be obtained between nouns and nonnouns and between high and 'low concrete words for associative recognition in a forced-choice recognition procedure. The results extend the generality of the mirror effect to measures of response latency and to associative recognition and also suggest that similar retrieval and decision processes underlie recognition of item and associative information.The mirror effect has been shown to be an important feature of item recognition (Glanzer & Adams, 1985, 1990Glanzer, Adams, & Iverson, 1991;Glanzer, Adams, Iverson, & Kim, 1993). The purpose of the present study was to compare and contrast the mirror effect for item and associative recognition memory.Item information provides the basis for remembering that a particular event has previously been experienced, whereas associative information represents relationships between items or events (Humphreys, 1976;Murdock, 1974). Tests of item recognition involve discriminations between old (studied) and new (nonstudied) events. Associative recognition requires subjects to discriminate intact or studied pairs from rearranged or new pairs (see, e.g., Clark, 1992;Hockley, 1991Hockley, , 1992Humphreys, 1976Humphreys, ,1978Murdock & Hockley, 1989). Rearranged test pairs consist of two previously studied words that have been presented in different study pairs. Thus, the discrimination of intact pairs from rearranged pairs cannot be based on the familiarity of the individual items in the test pairs but, rather, must be based on memory for the associations formed between items during the study phase.Several findings provide strong empirical support for the theoretical distinction between these two types of information in human memory. For example, processes at encoding can differentially emphasize item or associaThis work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant OGPINOI2. Portions of this study were presented at the XXV International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, in July 1992. I thank Murray Glanzer for providing the high/low word frequency pool; Deborah Connolly, Lyla Caudle, and Carolina Cristi for data collection; and Steve Clark, Michael Humphreys, Margaret Intons-Peterson, and Doug Hintzman for helpful comments on earlier versions ofthis paper. Correspondence can be addressed to the author, Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3C5 (e-mail: whockley@ mach l.wlu.ca).tive information (see, e.g., Bain & Humphreys, 1988;McGee, 1...

show abstract

“…A previous study developed a “reference assignment task” that enabled evaluation in a natural conversational context of children’s response to ambiguous utterances that require anaphoric reference of the preceding explicit utterances [ 13 ] (see also the “cued recall” [ 14 ], “reading time” [ 5 ], and “priming technique” [ 15 ] measures for adult participants). In the task, children were shown cards presenting colorful objects (e.g., a yellow car, a red chair, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological loop affects children’s interpretations of explicit but not ambiguous questions: Research on links between working memory and referent assignment

Meng¹,

Murakami²,

Hashiya³

2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the referent of other’s utterance by referring the contextual information helps in smooth communication. Although this pragmatic referential process can be observed even in infants, its underlying mechanism and relative abilities remain unclear. This study aimed to comprehend the background of the referential process by investigating whether the phonological loop affected the referent assignment. A total of 76 children (43 girls) aged 3–5 years participated in a reference assignment task in which an experimenter asked them to answer explicit (e.g., “What color is this?”) and ambiguous (e.g., “What about this?”) questions about colorful objects. The phonological loop capacity was measured by using the forward digit span task in which children were required to repeat the numbers as an experimenter uttered them. The results showed that the scores of the forward digit span task positively predicted correct response to explicit questions and part of the ambiguous questions. That is, the phonological loop capacity did not have effects on referent assignment in response to ambiguous questions that were asked after a topic shift of the explicit questions and thus required a backward reference to the preceding explicit questions to detect the intent of the current ambiguous questions. These results suggest that although the phonological loop capacity could overtly enhance the storage of verbal information, it does not seem to directly contribute to the pragmatic referential process, which might require further social cognitive processes.

show abstract

Two faces of the conceptual peg hypothesis.

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions.

Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions.

Reflections of the mirror effect for item and associative recognition

Phonological loop affects children’s interpretations of explicit but not ambiguous questions: Research on links between working memory and referent assignment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About