Memory for symbolic images: Findings from sports team logos.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pictures typically are better remembered than words-the picture superiority effect.An obvious yet understudied application of picture superiority is to advertising.We compared memorability of names of professional sports teams presented in three encoding conditions: team names only, team logos without names, and team logos with integrated names.Results of Experiment 1A provided the first evidence of an intact picture superiority effect for graphic symbols representing abstract concepts.This effect was, however, influenced by familiarity with the tobe-remembered stimuli.Experiment 1B highlighted the role of expertise in memory for logos:When tested on team names, the magnitude of the benefit for the logos-only group depended on whether participants knew what the logos represented.These experiments emphasize familiarity as an undervalued factor influencing memory for pictures.We suggest that logos, when featured in advertisements, should be accompanied by text labels to maximize memorability, especially for those unfamiliar with the brand.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it