ABSTRACT

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. Behavior Methods and Research, Instrumentation, & Computers, 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. Behavior Research Methods, 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. Behavior Research Methods, 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. Behavior Research Methods, 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 zRTs (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 zRTs may reflect more robust lexical representations for abstract words than concrete words, and that these two constructs are distinct.

摘要

我们研究了可成像性、具体性、感知强度和动作强度对识别记忆、词汇决策和朗读表现的预测能力。我们使用了我们的成像能力估计 [Cortese, MJ, & Fugett, A. (2004)。3,000 个单音节词的可成像性评级。行为方法和研究、仪器和计算机，36(3)，384-387。https://doi.org/10.3758/BF0​​3195585；Schock, J.、Cortese, MJ 和 Khanna, MM (2012a)。3,000 个双音节单词的可成像性评级。行为研究方法，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, AB, & Kuperman, V. (2014)。40,000 个众所周知的英语引理的具体性评级。行为研究方法，46（3），904-911。https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5]，以及 Lynott 及其同事的感知和动作强度评级 [Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J.,和卡尼，J.（2020 年）。兰开斯特感觉运动规范：40,000 个英语单词的感知和动作强度的多维测量。行为研究方法, 52(3), 1271–1291。https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z]。我们的结果表明可成像性是最好的预测指标，但评级研究之间的方法差异可能会导致结果。令人惊讶的是，动作强度与识别记忆呈负相关（尽管微弱）。对来自英语词典项目的项目 zRT 的分析表明，这些变量不是大声朗读或词汇决策性能的强预测因子。然而，具体性和z之间存在小的、一致的正相关关系RTs（即促进抽象效果）。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可成像性，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会加强记忆痕迹，但不会为朗读和词汇决策过程提供主要输入。此外，对词汇决策和朗读z RTs的促进抽象效应可能反映了抽象词比具体词更强大的词汇表示，并且这两种结构是不同的。