|
===Evidence from psychological research===
Many researchers have agreed that only words and images are used in mental representation<ref (name=":22">{{Citation|last=Pylyshyn,|first=Zenon W.|title=What the Mind’s Eye Tells the Mind’s Brain: A Critique of Mental Imagery|date=1973)|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1193-8_1|work=Images, Perception, and Knowledge|pages=1–36|publisher=Springer Netherlands|isbn=978-94-010-1195-2|access-date=2020-03-11}}</ref>. Supporting evidence shows that memory for some verbal information is enhanced if a relevant visual is also presented or if the learner can imagine a visual image to go with the verbal information. Likewise, visual information can often be enhanced when paired with relevant verbal information, whether real-world or imagined<ref>{{Cite (book|last=Anderson, &John Bower,R.|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/871224620|title=Human 1973)Associative Memory.|date=2014|publisher=Taylor and Francis|isbn=978-1-317-76988-0|oclc=871224620}}</ref>. This theory has been applied to the use of multimedia presentations. Because multimedia presentations require both spatial and verbal working memory, individuals duallydual code information presented and are more likely to recall the information when tested at a later date<ref>{{Cite (Brunye,journal|last=Brunyé|first=Tad T.|last2=Taylor, &|first2=Holly A.|last3=Rapp,|first3=David 2008)N.|date=2007|title=Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1396|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|volume=22|issue=7|pages=877–895|doi=10.1002/acp.1396|issn=0888-4080|via=}}</ref>. Moreover, studies that have been conducted on abstract and concrete words have also found that the participants remembered concrete words better than the abstract words<ref>{{Cite (journal|last=Hargis &, Gickling|first=Charles H, Edward E|date=May 1978;|title=The Function of Imagery in Word Recognition Development|url=|journal=The Reading Teacher|volume=31|pages=870-874|via=JSTOR}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sadoski,|first=Mark|last2=Willson|first2=Victor 2005;L.|last3=Holcomb|first3=Angelia|last4=Boulware-Gooden|first4=Regina|date=2004|title=Verbal Yui,and Ng,Nonverbal &Predictors of Spelling Performance|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3604_2|journal=Journal of Literacy Research|volume=36|issue=4|pages=461–478|doi=10.1207/s15548430jlr3604_2|issn=1086-296X|via=}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2719v1|title=Concrete vs abstract words – what do you recall better? A study on dual coding theory|last=Yui|first=Lin|last2=Ng|first2=Roslin|date=2017-01-14|website=dx.doi.org|access-date=2020-03-18|last3=Perera-W.A.,|first3=Hiran}}</ref>. 2017).
Paivio found that participants when shown a rapid sequence of pictures as well as a rapid sequence of words and later asked to recall the words and pictures, in any order, were better at recalling images. Participants, however, more readily recalled the sequential order of the words, rather than the sequence of pictures. These results supported Paivio's hypothesis that verbal information is processed differently from visual information and that verbal information was superior to visual information when sequential order was also required for the memory task (Paivio, 1969). Lee Brooks conducted an experiment that provided additional support for two systems for memory. He had participants perform either a visual task, where they had to view a picture and answer questions about the picture, or a verbal task, where they listened to a sentence and were then asked to answer questions pertaining to the sentence. To respond to the questions, participants were asked to either respond verbally, visually, or manually. Through this experiment, Brooks found that interference occurred when a visual perception was mixed with manipulation of the visual task, and verbal responses interfere with a task involving a verbal statement to be manually manipulated. This supported the idea of two codes used to mentally represent information (Sternberg 2003).
|
