Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Weaker than you might imagine

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Weaker than you might imagine: Determining imageability effects on word recognition

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Weaker than you might imagine: Determining imageability effects on word recognition. / Dymarska, A.; Connell, L.; Banks, B.
In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 129, 104398, 28.02.2023.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Dymarska, A, Connell, L & Banks, B 2023, 'Weaker than you might imagine: Determining imageability effects on word recognition', Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 129, 104398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104398

APA

Dymarska, A., Connell, L., & Banks, B. (2023). Weaker than you might imagine: Determining imageability effects on word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 129, Article 104398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104398

Vancouver

Dymarska A, Connell L, Banks B. Weaker than you might imagine: Determining imageability effects on word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language. 2023 Feb 28;129:104398. Epub 2022 Dec 30. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2022.104398

Author

Dymarska, A. ; Connell, L. ; Banks, B. / Weaker than you might imagine : Determining imageability effects on word recognition. In: Journal of Memory and Language. 2023 ; Vol. 129.

Bibtex

@article{3ccc8de50b704015baec5cf8bc2cbdd4,
title = "Weaker than you might imagine: Determining imageability effects on word recognition",
abstract = "Imageability – the ease of generating a mental image for a word – has been commonly used as a predictor of word recognition but its effects are highly variable across the literature, raising questions about the robustness and stability of the construct. We compared six existing imageability norms in their ability to predict RT and accuracy in lexical decision and word naming across thousands of words. Results showed that, when lexical and sensorimotor sources of variance were partialled out, imageability predicted little unique variance in word recognition performance and effect sizes varied greatly between norms. Further analysis suggested that such heterogenous effect sizes are likely due to inconsistent strategies in how participants interpret and rate imageability in norming studies, despite consistent instructions. Our findings suggest that the ease of generating a mental image for a word does not reliably facilitate word recognition and that imageability ratings should be used with caution in such research.",
keywords = "Imageability, Sensorimotor information, Situated simulation, Word recognition, adult, article, controlled study, effect size, female, human, human experiment, male, simulation, word recognition",
author = "A. Dymarska and L. Connell and B. Banks",
year = "2023",
month = feb,
day = "28",
doi = "10.1016/j.jml.2022.104398",
language = "English",
volume = "129",
journal = "Journal of Memory and Language",
issn = "0749-596X",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Weaker than you might imagine

T2 - Determining imageability effects on word recognition

AU - Dymarska, A.

AU - Connell, L.

AU - Banks, B.

PY - 2023/2/28

Y1 - 2023/2/28

N2 - Imageability – the ease of generating a mental image for a word – has been commonly used as a predictor of word recognition but its effects are highly variable across the literature, raising questions about the robustness and stability of the construct. We compared six existing imageability norms in their ability to predict RT and accuracy in lexical decision and word naming across thousands of words. Results showed that, when lexical and sensorimotor sources of variance were partialled out, imageability predicted little unique variance in word recognition performance and effect sizes varied greatly between norms. Further analysis suggested that such heterogenous effect sizes are likely due to inconsistent strategies in how participants interpret and rate imageability in norming studies, despite consistent instructions. Our findings suggest that the ease of generating a mental image for a word does not reliably facilitate word recognition and that imageability ratings should be used with caution in such research.

AB - Imageability – the ease of generating a mental image for a word – has been commonly used as a predictor of word recognition but its effects are highly variable across the literature, raising questions about the robustness and stability of the construct. We compared six existing imageability norms in their ability to predict RT and accuracy in lexical decision and word naming across thousands of words. Results showed that, when lexical and sensorimotor sources of variance were partialled out, imageability predicted little unique variance in word recognition performance and effect sizes varied greatly between norms. Further analysis suggested that such heterogenous effect sizes are likely due to inconsistent strategies in how participants interpret and rate imageability in norming studies, despite consistent instructions. Our findings suggest that the ease of generating a mental image for a word does not reliably facilitate word recognition and that imageability ratings should be used with caution in such research.

KW - Imageability

KW - Sensorimotor information

KW - Situated simulation

KW - Word recognition

KW - adult

KW - article

KW - controlled study

KW - effect size

KW - female

KW - human

KW - human experiment

KW - male

KW - simulation

KW - word recognition

U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2022.104398

DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2022.104398

M3 - Journal article

VL - 129

JO - Journal of Memory and Language

JF - Journal of Memory and Language

SN - 0749-596X

M1 - 104398

ER -