Why maps improve memory for text: The influence of structural information on working memory operations

Age-differences in environment route learning: The role of input and recall-test modalities in young and older adults

“…Mental model studies comparing map and description learning with verbal task (i.e., verification test) also found similar performance (Perrig & Kintsch, 1985;Taylor & Tversky, 1992). However, when other recall tasks were used (fact recall and map drawing), the advantage of maps over descriptions was found (Kulhavy, Stock, Verdi, Pittschof, & Savenye, 1993;Stock, Kulhavy, Peterson, Hancock, & Verdi, 1995). More recently, it has been shown that, after spatial description learning, both verification and map drawing tasks did not produce the same results (Brunyé & Taylor, 2008;Meneghetti, De Beni, Gyselinck, & Pazzaglia, 2011).…”

Learning and remembering from thematic maps of familiar regions

“…When a mental image is formed by studying a map, structure and feature information of the original maP is represented in the map image Kulhavy, Stock, Verdi, Rittschof & Savenye, 1993). Structural information includes the metric and directional relationships between locations, areas, and borders of a map.…”

Does spatial or visual information in maps facilitate text recall? Reconsidering the conjoint retention hypothesis

“…Numerous studies have shown that providing students a geographic map as an adjunct to text results in better recall of text information that is also referenced in the map than when students are provided only the text itself (e.g., Abel & Kulhavy, 1986;Kulhavy, Stock, Verdi, Rittschof, & Savenye, 1993;Schwartz & Kulhavy, 1981). Kulhavy and his colleagues (e.g., Kulhavy, Lee et al, 1985;Kulhavy & Stock, 1996) have explained this facilitative advantage of geographic maps using the conjoint retention hypothesis (CRH).…”

“…This claim was recently challenged by Griffin and Robinson (2000), who found no advantage for maps over feature lists in facilitating text recall. In two experiments, we crossed maps and lists with icons and names (c.f., Griffin & Robinson), and employed materials and methodology very similar to those used in previous CRH studies by Kulhavy and colleagues (Kulhavy, Stock, Verdi, Rittschof, and Savenye, 1993;Stock, Kulhavy, Peterson, Hancock, & Verdi, 1995). In addition, we included a concurrent task to measure spatial encoding, as did Griffin and Robinson (Paivio, 1986), but not the CRH.…”

“…The two maps (mimetic map and square map) were based on the 8.5 × 11 in. (21.59 × 27.94 cm) map used by Kulhavy Stock, Verdi et al (1993). The maps were presented on 11 × 17 in.…”