Verbal mediation and memory for novel figural designs: a dual interference study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the extent that all types of visual stimuli can be verbalized to some degree, verbal mediation is intrinsic in so-called "visual" memory processing. This impurity complicates the interpretation of visual memory performance, particularly in certain neurologically impaired populations (e.g., aphasia). The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative contributions of verbal mediation to recognition memory for visual stimuli that vary with respect to their amenability to being verbalized. In Experiment 1, subjects attempted to verbally describe novel figural designs during presentation and then identify them in a subsequent recognition memory test. Verbalizing these designs facilitated memory. Stimuli that were found to be easiest or most difficult to verbalize at the group level were retained for the second study. In Experiment 2, subjects evidenced superior recognition memory for the relatively easy to verbalize items. This advantage was attenuated in subjects who performed a concurrent verbal interference task during encoding, but not in those who performed an analogous visual interference task. These findings provide evidence that impoverished verbal mediation disproportionately impedes memory for visual material that is relatively easy to verbalize. Implications for the clinical assessment of visual memory are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".