Presentation format and its effect on working memory

Abstract

In three experiments, we examined the separate cognitive demands of processing and storage in working memory and looked at how effective the coordination was when items for storage varied in format/ modality. A sentence verification task involving arithmetic facts was combined with a span task involving two to six items presented in picture, printed word, or spoken word format. The first two experiments were the same, except for the added requirement of articulation of the math sentence in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 varied the length of the span item and compared recall with recognition performance. The results showed that both spoken words and pictures produced superior recall and recognition, as compared with printed words, and are consistent with Baddeley and Logie's (1999) and Mayer's (2001)models of working memory. Also, the differences in processing performance across spans varied with the difficulty of the task but showed the strongest support for the resource allocation model (Foos, 1995).

Presentation format effects in working memory: The role of attention

“…In the present work, we address the question of why some types of presentation formats result in better recall from working memory than other types do (Goolkasian & Foos, 2002). We studied the advantages of pictures and spoken words over printed words by varying the type and difficulty of the processing task and manipulating the allocation of attention to presented items in the storage task.…”

“…In our recent work (Goolkasian & Foos, 2002), we examined working, rather than long-term, memory for material presented in these different modalities (auditory vs. visual) and in different formats in the same modality (picture vs. printed word) with a dual task that measured the cognitive demands of storage and processing. Participants attempted to remember concrete nouns, presented as printed words, spoken words, or pictures, while verifying the accuracy of math sentences.…”

“…The dual task used in these experiments is modeled on a complex operations span task (La Pointe & Engle, 1990) and was used in our previous work (Goolkasian & Foos, 2002, 2005. Our processing component was a sentence verification task, and it included articulation of the stimulus sentences.…”

Presentation Format Effects in a Levels-of-Processing Task

“…Although the effect of presentation format has had a long and rich research history, it is somewhat fragmented: and as a result, there are few general principles that psychological science can offer as a guide for efficient processing of stimulus information. The present research integrates previous work with picture/word (e.g., Kosslyn, 1980;Paivio, 1975) and auditory/visual (e.g., Greene, 1985;Penney, 1989) comparisons by exploring why printed words are not recalled as well as other presentation formats (e.g., pictures and spoken words) (Foos & Goolkasian, 2005;Goolkasian & Foos, 2002). Three experiments extend the investigation of format effects beyond encoding processes and working memory by using a levels of processing (LoP) approach (e.g., Craik & Lockhart, 1972) to examine whether effects of presentation format remain in long-term memory even after participants have encoded the stimulus items to the same levels.…”

The use of Screen Recorders for Assessment and Learning of Data Analysis

“…Mayer (1999) proposed that it is the generative processes required for oral explanation that lead to observed better comprehension. Also, as long ago as the 1980s, it was demonstrated that when information is encoded to memory via oral explanations, it leads to recall superior to anything encoded via written words (e.g., Bekerian & Dennett, 1988;Goolkasian & Foos, 2002). In addition, and very importantly, oral explanations are believed to be associated with authentic understanding -i.e., thought in action rather than thought on reflection (e.g., Zhou Qi-jia, 2006).…”