How well imageability, concreteness, perceptual strength, and action strength predict recognition memory, lexical decision, and reading aloud performance

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Imageability
• concreteness
• perceptual strength
• action strength
• word processing

Data availability statement

Data related to this research is publicly available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/zrd6x/?view_only=99518c397e7a4c93ba356d20d1e68a24

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 We note that this reliance on visual imagery more than the other senses does not equate to visual strength as defined by Lynott et al. (2020). For example, the aforementioned items ghost, devil, demon, and monster are not experienced via vision per se and do not receive high visual strength ratings. In the 4743 items assessed here, visual strength correlated .577 with imageability.

2 We note that with the much larger set of 4743 items employed in the current study, the correlation between visual strength and concreteness ratings was similar (r =.567) to the correlation between visual strength and imageability (r =.577).

3 We note that while our results are consistent with our interpretation of dual coding theory, the results are not unequivocal in this regard. In other words, we did not conduct a critical experiment to differentiate between contrasting theoretical predictions. In addition, we did not consider amodal approaches to imageability such as context availability theory (e.g., Schwanenflugel et al., 1992).