When are moving images remembered better? Study-test congruence and the dynamic superiority effect.

It has previously been shown that moving images are remembered better than static ones. In two experiments, we investigated the basis for this dynamic superiority effect. Participants studied scenes presented as a single static image, a sequence of still images, or a moving video clip, and 3 days later completed a recognition test in which familiar and novel scenes were presented in all three formats. We found a marked congruency effect: For a given study format, accuracy was highest when test items were shown in the same format. Neither the dynamic superiority effect nor the study–test congruency effect was affected by encoding (Experiment 1) or retrieval (Experiment 2) manipulations, suggesting that these effects are relatively impervious to strategic control. The results demonstrate that the spatio-temporal properties of complex, realistic scenes are preserved in long-term memory.

[1]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Recognizing moving faces: a psychological and neural synthesis , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Eyal M Reingold,et al.  Long-term perceptual specificity effects in recognition memory: the transformed pictures paradigm. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[3]  V. Bruce,et al.  Repetition priming from moving faces , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[4]  A. Yonelinas.  The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research , 2002 .

[5]  S Rajaram,et al.  Perceptual effects on remembering: recollective processes in picture recognition memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  W. Matthews,et al.  Memory for moving and static images , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Robert Sekuler,et al.  Learning to imitate novel motion sequences. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[8]  K. Lander,et al.  Exploring the role of characteristic motion when learning new faces , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  Koen Lamberts,et al.  The encoding–retrieval relationship: retrieval as mental simulation , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Eyal M Reingold,et al.  On the perceptual specificity of memory representations , 2002, Memory.

[11]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[12]  Evan Heit,et al.  Perceptual processes in matching and recognition of complex pictures. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Timed Action and Object Naming , 2005, Cortex.

[14]  M. Masson.  Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[15]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Recognition memory for pictures: Dynamic vs. static stimuli , 1982 .

[16]  Vicki Bruce,et al.  The role of motion in learning new faces , 2003 .

[17]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[18]  Caren M. Rotello,et al.  Recall-to-Reject in Recognition: Evidence from ROC Curves ☆ ☆☆ , 2000 .

[19]  Yuanzhen Li,et al.  Measuring visual clutter. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[20]  K. Lamberts,et al.  List Strength Effect without List Length Effect in Recognition Memory , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  G. Bower,et al.  Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory , 1974 .

[22]  G. Mather,et al.  Gender discrimination in biological motion displays based on dynamic cues , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.