Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA.
University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA.
Memory. 2021 May;29(5):622-636. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2021.1924789. Epub 2021 May 10.
We examined how well imageability, concreteness, perceptual strength, and action strength predicted recognition memory, lexical decision, and reading aloud performance. We used our imageability estimates [Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. , 36(3), 384-387. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195585; Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012a). Imageability ratings for 3,000 disyllabic words. , 44(2), 374-379. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0162-0], concreteness norms of Brysbaert and colleagues [Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English lemmas. , 46(3), 904-911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5], and perceptual and action strength ratings of Lynott and colleagues [Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2020). The lancaster sensorimotor norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. , 52(3), 1271-1291. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z]. Our results indicate imageability is the best predictor, but methodological differences between ratings studies may contribute to the results. Surprisingly, action strength was negatively (albeit weakly) related to recognition memory. Analyses of item zRTs from the English lexicon project indicate these variables were not strong predictors of reading aloud or lexical decision performance. However, there is a small, consistent positive relationship between concreteness and RTs (i.e., a facilitative abstractness effect). We believe researchers should either employ or control for imageability rather than concreteness, perceptual strength, or action strength when conducting recognition memory experiments. In addition, image-based codes generated at encoding strengthen memory traces but do not provide major inputs into reading aloud and lexical decision processes. Also, the facilitative abstractness effect on lexical decision and reading aloud RTs may reflect more robust lexical representations for abstract words than concrete words, and that these two constructs are distinct.
我们考察了图像可感性、具体性、感知强度和动作强度对识别记忆、词汇判断和朗读表现的预测能力。我们使用了我们的图像可感性估计值 [Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). 3000 个单音节词的图像可感性评分。, 36(3), 384-387. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195585; Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012a). 3000 个双音节词的图像可感性评分。, 44(2), 374-379. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0162-0]、Brysbaert 及其同事的具体性规范 [Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). 40000 个一般已知英语词汇的具体性评分。, 46(3), 904-911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5] 和 Lynott 及其同事的感知和动作强度评分 [Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2020). 兰开斯特感觉运动规范：40000 个英语单词的多维感知和动作强度测量。, 52(3), 1271-1291. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z]。我们的结果表明，图像可感性是最好的预测指标，但评分研究之间的方法差异可能导致了这些结果。令人惊讶的是，动作强度与识别记忆呈负相关（尽管很微弱）。来自英语词汇项目的项目 zRTs 的分析表明，这些变量不是朗读或词汇判断表现的强预测指标。然而，在 RTs 上存在着一个小的、一致的正相关关系，即具体性的促进抽象效应（facilitative abstractness effect）。我们认为，在进行识别记忆实验时，研究人员应该使用或控制图像可感性，而不是具体性、感知强度或动作强度。此外，在编码时生成的基于图像的代码可以增强记忆痕迹，但不会对朗读和词汇判断过程产生重大影响。另外，在词汇判断和朗读 RTs 上的促进抽象效应可能反映了抽象词比具体词具有更强大的词汇表示，并且这两个构念是不同的。
