Drawing as an Encoding Tool: Memorial Benefits in Younger and Older Adults

ABSTRACT

Background/Study Context. In a recent study, drawing pictures relative to writing words at encoding has been shown to benefit later memory performance in young adults. In the current study, we sought to test whether older adults’ memory might also benefit from drawing as an encoding strategy. Our prediction was that drawing would serve as a particularly effective form of environmental support at encoding as it encourages a more detailed perceptual representation.

Methods. Participants were presented 30 nouns, one at a time, and asked to either draw a picture or repeatedly write out the word, which was followed by a free recall test for all words (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we added an elaborative processing task in which we asked participants to list physical characteristics of the objects. In Experiment 3, we probed recognition memory for the words.

Results. Of the words recalled in Experiment 1, a larger proportion had been drawn than written at encoding, and this effect was larger in older relative to younger adults. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that drawing improves memory in both younger and older adults more than does an elaborative encoding task consisting of listing descriptive characteristics of the target nouns. In Experiment 3, older and younger adults drew or wrote out words at encoding, and subsequently provided Remember-Know-New recognition memory decisions. We showed that drawing reduced age-related differences in Remember responses.

Conclusions. We suggest that incorporating visuo-perceptual information into the memory trace, by drawing pictures at study, increases reliance of the memory trace on visual sensory regions, which are relatively intact in normal aging, relative to simply writing out or elaborately encoding words. Overall, results indicate that drawing is a highly valuable form of environmental support that can significantly enhance memory performance in older adults.

Notes

1. The proportion of words recalled for each encoding trial type (number of drawn or written words divided by total number of words recalled for each individual participant) was analyzed in a 2 Age (Younger and Older) X 3 Encoding Trial Type (Drawing, Writing, Listing) mixed ANOVA, with age as a between- and encoding type as a within-subjects factor. The analysis revealed a main effect of encoding trial type, F (2, 92) = 46.24, MSE = 0.85, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.50. When broken down by simple effects contrasts, we found that this effect was driven by better memory for drawn than for written words, F (1, 46) = 86.66, MSE = 3.38, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.65. Listing descriptive characteristics lead to worse memory performance than drawing, F (1, 46) = 26.96, MSE = 1.15, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.37, but better performance than writing, F (1, 46) = 20.24, MSE = 0.59, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.31. There was no significant encoding trial type x age interaction, F (1, 92) = 0.88, MSE = 0.02, p = .42, η_p² = 0.02.

2. The calculation of familiarity requires one to quantify opportunities for K responses; in a subset of participants (14 participants: 6 younger and 8 older adults) there was no such opportunity as their responses consisted exclusively of R responses. As such, strong conclusions should not be made based on this calculated measure of process estimates of recollection and familiarity. Nonetheless, based on our data, it appears that memory is driven by familiarity moreso for words written than drawn at encoding.