The Processing of Pictures and Written Words: A Perceptual and Conceptual Perspective

Paul Miller
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2011.27109                

Abstract

The present study examines similarities and differences in the processing of drawings and their corresponding names. For this purpose, students were asked to determine as fast as possible the identicalness of two pictures as opposed to the identicalness of their written Hebrew names. Twenty-eight Hebrew native speakers from the fifth grade participated in the experiment. Findings suggest that the human information processing system optimizes the processing of information (words, drawings, etc.) according to specific task requirements or task constraints. Stimulus type per se does not seem to determine the depth of its processing, nor does it seem to directly trigger particular modalities of encoding (perceptual, linguistic, semantic). Finally, the findings warrant the conclusion that superiority effects related to the processing of written words and pictorial stimuli reflect artifacts of task requirements rather than inherent characteristics of stimuli.

Keywords

Coding, Words, Pictures

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Corcoran, D. W. J., & Rouse, R. O. (1970). An aspect of perceptual organization involved in reading typed and handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 526-530. doi:10.1080/14640747008401930
[2]	De Zuniga, C. M., Humphreys, G. W., & Evett, L. J. (1991). Additive and interactive effects of repetition, degradation, and word frequency in the reading of handwriting. In D. Besner, & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 10-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[3]	Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure: Toward an integrated cognitive psychology of atypical reading. New York: Psychological Press.
[4]	Job, R., Rumiati, R., & Lotto, L. (1992). The picture superiority effect in categorization: Visual or semantic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 1019-1028. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1019
[5]	Job, R., & Tenconi, E. L. (1002). Naming pictures at no cost: Asymmetries in picture and word conditional naming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 790-794. doi:10.3758/BF03196336
[6]	Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Categorizing chairs and naming pears: Category differences in object processing as a function of task and priming. Memory & Cognition, 25, 606-624. doi:10.3758/BF03211303
[7]	McBride, D. M., & Dosher, B. A. (2002). A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: A process dissociation analysis. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 423-460. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00007-7
[8]	McCann, R. S., & Besner, D. (1987). Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation assembly and the locus of word-frequency effects in naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 14-24. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.14
[9]	Miller, P. (2005). Changes in the processing of letters, written words, and pseudo-homophones: A comparison of fifth graders and university students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 407-434. doi:10.3200/GNTP.166.4.407-434
[10]	Nelson, D. L. (1979). Remembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and name. In L. S. Cermak, & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 45-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[11]	Nelson, D. L., Redd, V. S., & Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 523-528. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.523
[12]	Paivio, A. (1975). Coding distinctions and repetition effects in memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 179-214). New York: Academic Press.
[13]	Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
[14]	Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287. doi:10.1037/h0084295
[15]	Paivio, A. (1995). Imagery and memory. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 977-986). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[16]	Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176-206. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90032-7
[17]	Posner, M. I., & Mitchell, R. R. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74, 392-409. doi:10.1037/h0024913
[18]	Potter, M., Kroll, J., Yachzel, B., Carpenter, E., & Sherman, J. (1986). Picture in sentences: Understanding without words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 281-294. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.3.281
[19]	Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
[20]	Shimron, J. (1993). The role of vowels in reading: A review of studies of English and Hebrew. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 52-67. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.52
[21]	Weldon, M. S., & Coyote, K. C. (1996). Failure to find the picture superiority effect in implicit conceptual memory tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 670-686. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.670
[22]	Weldon, M. S., & Roediger, H. L. (1987). Altering retrieval demands reverses the picture superiority effect. Memory & Cognition, 21, 519-528. doi:10.3758/BF03197183
[23]	Wippich, W., Melzer, A., & Mecklenbrauker, S. (1998). Picture or word superiority effects in implicit memory: Levels of processing, attention, and retrieval constraints. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 33-46.