Production of picture names improves picture recognition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Words read aloud are later recalled and recognized better than words read silently: the production effect. Previous research (Fawcett, Quinlan, & Taylor, 2012) has demonstrated a production effect in old/new recognition of line drawings. The current study examined whether production at encoding can improve memory for the visual details of a picture, or whether it is primarily memory for the picture's verbal label that benefits from production. Participants studied a list of photographs of nameable objects by naming half of the objects aloud and half silently. In Experiment 1, a control group completed a free recall test for the object names while the experimental group completed a 4-alternative forced-choice recognition test for the studied pictures and provided confidence judgments in their recognition decisions. Both groups showed a significant production effect. Experiment 2 obtained image typicality ratings and naming data for use in Experiment 3. In Experiment 3, studied items were tested after a 1-week delay in one of three different types of 2-alternative forced-choice recognition test: versus a different picture exemplar of the same item; versus a different picture; or as a verbal label versus a different verbal label. Results showed a significant production effect in all testing conditions, with the magnitude of the effect similar across conditions. Production improves memory for both the visual details and verbal label of pictures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".