Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
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 -