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

In 4 experiments, symbolic comparisons were investigated to test semantic-memory retrieval accounts espousing processing advantages for picture over word stimuli. In Experiment 1, participants judged pairs of animal names or pictures by responding to questions probing concrete or abstract attributes (texture or size, ferocity or intelligence). Per pair, attributes were salient or nonsalient concerning their prerated relevance to animals being compared. Distance (near or far) between attribute magnitudes was also varied. Pictures did not significantly speed responding relative to words across all other variables. Advantages were found forfar attribute magnitudes (i.e., the distance effect) and salient attributes. The distance effect was much less for salient than nonsalient concrete-attribute comparisons. These results were consistently found in additional experiments with increased statistical power to detect modality effects. Our findings argue against dual-coding and some common-code accounts of conceptual attribute processing, urging reexamination of the assumption that pictures confer privileged access to long-term knowledge.

[1]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  The role of visual similarity in picture categorization. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  R. Moyer Comparing objects in memory: Evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics , 1973 .

[3]  Comparative judgments of animal intelligence and pleasantness , 1980 .

[4]  J. Kounios,et al.  Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual-coding theory. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Harry L. Chiesi,et al.  Picture-word differences in decision latency: An analysis of single and dual memory models , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[6]  A. Paivio Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[7]  Francis T. Durso,et al.  Facilitation in naming and categorizing repeated pictures and words. , 1979 .

[8]  M. Potter,et al.  Time to understand pictures and words , 1975, Nature.

[9]  V. S. Reed,et al.  Learning to Order Pictures and Words: A Model of Sensory and Semantic Encoding. , 1977 .

[10]  D. Algom,et al.  Processing picture-word stimuli: the contingent nature of picture and of word superiority. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[12]  K J Holyoak,et al.  Semantic congruity in symbolic comparisons: Evidence against an expectancy hypothesis , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[13]  M. Marschark Semantic congruity in symbolic comparisons: Salience, expectancy, and associative priming , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Effects of target size and eccentricity on visual detection and resolution , 1978, Vision Research.

[15]  A. Paivio Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[16]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[17]  E. Shoben,et al.  The role of part—whole information in reasoning about relative size , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[18]  R. Moyer,et al.  Mental comparison and the symbolic distance effect , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  L. Seifert,et al.  Activating representations in permanent memory: different benefits for pictures and words. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  M. C. Smith,et al.  Tracing the time course of picture--word processing. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  S. Kerst,et al.  Mental comparisons for ordered information on abstract and concrete dimensions , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[22]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  Concepts and Their Surface Representations , 1984 .

[23]  W. Banks,et al.  Semantic and perceptual processes in symbolic comparisons. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  W. Glaser,et al.  Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  W. Glaser Picture naming , 1992, Cognition.

[26]  P. E. Morris,et al.  Classifying pictures and words: Implications for the dual-coding hypothesis , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[27]  John Theios,et al.  Theoretical analysis of the cognitive processing of lexical and pictorial stimuli: reading, naming, and visual and conceptual comparisons. , 1989 .

[28]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Meaning and modality: influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[30]  Samuel Shaki,et al.  The locus and nature of semantic congruity in symbolic comparison: Evidence from the Stroop effect , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[31]  M. Bajo Semantic facilitation with pictures and words. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  E. Shoben,et al.  Categorization processes in mental comparisons. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  E. Shoben,et al.  Categorization in Judgments of Relative Magnitude , 1998 .

[34]  W. Glaser,et al.  The time course of picture-word interference. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Allan Paivio,et al.  Mental comparisons involving abstract attributes , 1978 .