Role of Mimeticism and Spatiality in Textual Recall

Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 125–149 (2000)doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.0997, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Role of Mimeticism and Spatiality in Textual Recall

Marlynn M. Griffin

Georgia Southern University

and

Daniel H. Robinson

University of Texas at Austin

Four experiments were conducted to investigate the role of map spatiality andicon mimeticism in facilitating text recall. A secondary goal was to explore an as-sumption of the conjoint retention hypothesis, that the visuospatial component ofworking memory is involved in retrieving map information. We manipulated displayconditions to evaluate the separate and combined effects of map spatiality and iconmimeticism on text recall. We also utilized a concurrent task paradigm to assessboth the recognition of spatial displays and the recall of map feature information.The results of all four experiments point to the mimeticism of icons as the keyattribute of maps for facilitating recall, rather than the spatial layout of the mapwhen visual displays and text are presented simultaneously during encoding. Wealso found no evidence indicating that maps are processed in a more spatial mannerthan are lists. 2000 Academic Press

There is considerable evidence that when a geographic map is providedto students as an adjunct to text, students remember more text informationreferenced in the map than they would if provided only the text itself (Abel &Kulhavy, 1986; Kulhavy, Stock, Peterson, Pridemore, & Klein, 1992; Kul-havy, Stock, Verdi, Rittschof, & Savenye, 1993a; Schwartz & Kulhavy,1981). In an attempt to explain this facilitative function of maps, Kulhavyand his colleagues (e.g., Kulhavy, Lee, & Caterino, 1985) developed theconjoint retention (CR) hypothesis. The CR hypothesis is an interpretationof dual coding theory (cf., Paivio, 1986) applied to map learning. According

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Marlynn M. Griffin, Curriculum, Founda-tions, and Research, P.O. Box 8144, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460–8144. E-mail: [email protected]. Fax: (912)681-5093.

The authors thank Kent Rittschof of Georgia Southern University and James Webb of KentState University for responding to questions related to the preparation of this manuscript andfor providing copies of papers not available in the authors’ libraries more quickly than theycould be obtained through interlibrary loan.

1250361-476X/00 $35.00

Copyright 2000 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

126 GRIFFIN AND ROBINSON

to CR, information that is referenced in both the text and the accompanyingmap is encoded both verbally and spatially, whereas information that is refer-enced in a text but not in a map is encoded only verbally. Due to this dualcoding advantage, map information is ‘‘conjointly retained’’ and thus is morelikely to be retrieved because the spatial representation can be accessed whenan attempt to retrieve the verbal representation fails. The encoded spatialinformation from a map serves as a ‘‘second stratum cue’’ that facilitatesretrieval (Kulhavy et al., 1992).

Recently, Kulhavy and his colleagues (Kulhavy & Stock, 1996; Kulhavy,Woodard, Haygood, & Webb, 1993c) have reconceptualized the CR hypoth-esis. Their current explanation focuses on the computational advantage ofmaps that is made available through the representational mode (image). Oncethe meaning of a map, or the purpose for which it will be used, has beendetermined, the map viewer creates a variation of a map image which issuited to the task at hand. For example, Schwartz and Phillippe (1991) foundthat subjects typically recall features based on their similarity, rather thantheir proximity, when asked to learn map features as conceptually relatedchunks. There are constraints, however, to the amount and type of informa-tion which can be stored in this representation, simply because of a limitedset of storage and maintenance resources that can be used to process the maprepresentation in memory.

Three lines of reasoning are used to support the argument that memoryrepresentations that result from reading verbal descriptions of maps do notpossess the same qualities as memory representations that result from view-ing visual depictions of maps (Kulhavy & Stock, 1996). First, it is virtuallyimpossible to accurately represent the structural and inferential relations con-tained in even simple maps with only a verbal description. Second, the me-morial system processes map depictions and verbal descriptions differently,with descriptions processed sequentially while ‘‘depictions allow unorderedand simultaneous access to visual details’’ (p. 128) (see also Das, Kirby, &Jarman, 1979). Finally, Tippett (1992) noted that visual depictions possessthe perceptual characteristic of intactness [i.e., the ‘‘arrangement of compo-nents which has more meaning than that obtained from simply an aggregationof the parts’’ (Robinson & Petchenik, 1976, as cited in Kulhavy & Stock,1996)] which is lacking in verbal descriptions. The memory representationcreated when a map is viewed may contain both feature and structural infor-mation. Feature information refers to individual locations on the map (land-marks, names, etc.) as well as ‘‘retinal variables’’ (Bertin, 1983) of color,shape, and size. Structural information refers to ‘‘relations among featuresand border and path lines that serve as reference points for individual featureswithin the mapped space’’ (Kulhavy & Stock, 1996, p. 129).

Structural information, which contributes to the map’s characteristic ofintactness, can be encoded into the memory representation of the map only

MIMETICISM AND SPATIALITY 127

if the right conditions exist. These conditions include grouping or chunkinginformation together, in an intact image, so as not to exceed the capacitylimits of working memory (Larkin & Simon, 1987). The general familiarityof maps and this perceptual intactness or coherency allow relatively complexmaps to be learned and remembered without exceeding the limits of workingmemory. This information can then be retrieved and searched as a single unit.Thus, both intactness and familiarity combine to trigger strategies permittingcomputationally efficient encoding, storage, and retrieval processes. Thiscomputational advantage allows a map viewer to view an entire map andthen shift from location to location within the map space without taxing thelimits of working memory. Structural coherency, which defines the spatialproperties of a map and leads to the computational advantage, is now in-cluded as part of the reconceptualized CR hypothesis and is seen as the pri-mary reason that geographic maps facilitate the learning of related prose(Kulhavy & Stock, 1996).

In typical map display experiments, students view one of three spatialdisplays (a map containing labeled feature icons; a list of feature names; ora control display where no maps, icons, or feature names are presented) andthen listen to a related text (Abel & Kulhavy, 1986; Schwartz & Kulhavy,1981). Students who view the maps generally recall more feature informationthan students in the other two conditions. These results have been interpretedas providing evidence for the facilitative advantage of maps due to theirspatial layout. However, this advantage may occur because of the presenceof mimetic icons (i.e., icons which mimic or imitate the features they repre-sent) rather than just names to represent map features. If the facilitative ad-vantage offered by maps is due to the spatial layout of the map itself, assuggested by CR, then students who view a map should recall more textinformation than those who view a list of labeled mimetic icons. If, however,the facilitative advantage of maps is due to the visual properties of the fea-tures within the map’s spatial layout, then a list of mimetic icons should aidstudents’ recall as well as a map which displays spatially the same mimeticicons. In the present series of experiments, we used a variety of displayconditions including a list of labeled mimetic icons, a condition which hasnot been examined before.

While CR has been traditionally viewed through a dual coding lens, Bad-deley’s (1992) model of working memory is perhaps more compatible withCR because Baddeley’s model distinguishes only between verbal and spatialinformation, whereas dual coding distinguishes between verbal and nonver-bal information (which may include smells, feelings, etc.). Baddeley main-tains that there are two separate, but connected, ‘‘slave systems’’ responsiblefor processing, maintaining, and retrieving information. The phonologicalloop is a sound-based system that is responsible for verbal information,whereas the visuospatial sketchpad is an image-based system that handles


spatial information. Recast in Baddeley’s model, CR would predict that in-formation stored with reference to both a sound and an image will morelikely be retrieved due to the connection between the two slave systems.

The CR hypothesis maintains that a student’s memory representation ofa map is an intact image that aids in recall. If this is true, then according toBaddeley’s (1992) model, it is likely that this image is stored in the visuospa-tial sketchpad component of working memory. A recent study by Robinson,Katayama, and Fan (1996) used concurrent task methodology to investigatewhether retrieval processes associated with studying adjunct displays in-volved use of the visuospatial component of working memory (Baddeley,1992), an important assumption of CR. They found that when students at-tempted to retrieve information after having studied graphic organizers orconcept maps their performance on a spatial working memory task was di-minished. This spatial interference was not found when students studied out-lines or texts. Robinson et al. concluded that the CR hypothesis may explainthe facilitative advantages of spatial adjunct displays, but not of linear ad-junct displays such as outlines. In the present study, we tested whether mapsor other displays are stored as intact images by examining students’ perfor-mance on a spatial working memory task under a variety of encoding condi-tions.

In the first three experiments, students viewed some combination of a mapthat contained labeled icons, a list that contained the same labeled icons, amap that contained feature labels only, a list of the feature labels, or simplythe title of a fictional location, while listening to someone read five sentencesabout the location. The fourth experiment varied somewhat in that studentswere shown a map of an actual location (previously used in map displayexperiments, see Kulhavy et al., 1993a) with icons or with feature labels, ora list of labeled icons or feature labels and were instructed to learn thesematerials, as they would help students learn a second set of materials. Stu-dents in Experiment 4 then silently read a passage corresponding to the visualdisplays. Students in all four experiments were next shown a spatial memorydisplay (a dot configuration) that was similar to those used by Kruley, Sci-ama, and Glenberg (1994) and Robinson et al. (1996). After viewing the dotdisplay, students were asked to recall as much information as they couldremember, followed by a recognition test of the spatial memory display.According to the CR hypothesis, students should recall more map-relatedtext information when they view maps than when they view either lists ortitles. Also in accord with CR, we hypothesized that retrieving a mental rep-resentation of an intact map would compete with the mental representationof the dot configuration for the limited resources of the visuospatial sketch-pad. This would become apparent if students’ performance on the spatialworking memory task was worse when viewing maps than when viewinglists or titles. In addition, the spatial memory task could mask the facilitative


advantages of the map by interfering with performance on the recall test.Either of these two scenarios would provide evidence that maps are repre-sented in memory as spatial images.

In the following series of experiments, we tested two hypotheses. Ourprimary interest was to test an assumption of the reconceptualized CR model(Kulhavy & Stock, 1996; Kulhavy, Woodard, Haygood, & Webb, 1993c),that the structural information conveyed by maps is paramount in facilitatingthe recall of text. To this end, we manipulated display conditions to deter-mine whether the mimeticism of icons, the spatiality of the map, or both werenecessary for increased feature recall. A secondary interest was to evaluate alesser assumption of CR, that the visuospatial sketchpad is involved in theretrieval of map information. To do so, we utilized a concurrent task para-digm and assessed both recognition of spatial displays and recall of featureinformation.

EXPERIMENT 1

Experiment 1 was designed to examine whether the spatial arrangementof mimetic icons within a map space is a key component in facilitating textrecall. To evaluate this assumption, three types of displays were utilized.Students viewed either a map with five icons dispersed throughout the mapspace, a list of the same five icons, or a title page listing only the name ofa fictitious location (see Figs. 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Students viewed

FIG. 1. Icon-map display.


FIG. 2. Icon-list display.

these displays as they listened to someone reading five sentences. Each sen-tence contained a noun represented in the map and list and a noun whichwas not represented. If the spatiality of the map is an important factor im-pacting recall of nouns presented in the text, we would expect students torecall more information when viewing maps rather than lists or titles. If mi-meticism of the icons is a key factor, then we would expect students to recallmore information when viewing both maps and lists rather than titles.

In this experiment we also examined the use of the visuospatial sketchpadto process spatial information. Robinson et al. (1996) hypothesized thatviewing graphic displays would facilitate the development of spatial mental

FIG. 3 Title-only display.


models which would compete with the representation of a dot configurationdisplay for the limited processing resources of the visuospatial sketchpad.We expected that students would have more difficulty identifying a previ-ously seen dot configuration after viewing an intact map than after viewinga list of icons or no display if the visuospatial sketchpad is used to processicon–maps differentially from icon–lists.

Method

Design and subjects. Two independent variables, display (icon–map vs icon–list vs title–display) and noun (represented vs nonrepresented), were examined in a within-subjects coun-terbalanced design. The subjects were 35 student volunteers attending Mississippi State Uni-versity.

Materials. Fifty sentences were written that described 10 fictional counties (five sentencesper location). Each set of five sentences for each location is referred to as a text. Each sentencemade reference to a noun that appeared in an icon–map and icon–list. These were ‘‘representednouns’’ because they were represented in the maps and lists. Each sentence also made referenceto a noun that did not appear in the map and list displays, called ‘‘nonrepresented nouns.’’An example of one of the sentences was ‘‘they saw an acorn being carried by a centipede,’’where ‘‘acorn’’ was the represented noun and ‘‘centipede’’ was the nonrepresented noun. Foreach sentence, the represented noun occurred first in the sentence followed by the nonrepre-sented noun.

For each text, an icon–map, an icon–list, and a title–display were constructed. Each icon-map consisted of a border that surrounded five labeled icons (e.g., castle) and was presentedin the middle of an 8.5 3 11-inch page with the name of the location listed at the top of thepage. All maps were shaped differently but were approximately the same size (4 3 5 inches).Each icon–list consisted of the same labeled icons as the corresponding map, except that therewas no map border and the icons were left-justified and listed top-to-bottom on the pagewith the name of the location presented at the top of the page. Each title–display consistedof only the location name at the top of the page. Examples of each display are presented inFigs. 1–3.

Ten spatial memory displays were constructed. Each spatial display consisted of a squaregrid, 9 cells 3 9 cells, and five solid black dots, each contained within a single cell of thegrid. Ten memory tests were constructed consisting of four grid-and-dot configurations withthe letters ‘‘A’’ through ‘‘D’’ directly above each. One of the test configurations was the sameas the original display (except that the entire pattern was displaced); the other three differedby displacing the entire pattern and then displacing two of the dots a distance of one cell(above, below, left, right, or diagonally) from the new pattern position. Packets consisting ofa series of adjunct visual displays, spatial memory displays, blank pages to be used for recalltasks, and spatial memory multiple choice tests were prepared on 8.5 3 11-inch plain bluepaper (so that students could not see material on the later pages). An example of a spatialdisplay and its corresponding test is presented in Fig. 4.

Procedure. Students were randomly assigned to one of three counterbalancing conditionsaccording to the packets of materials they received. Prior to beginning the experiment, thepackets were ordered by counterbalancing conditions (A, B, C, A, B, C, etc.). Packets werethen distributed to students individually as they sat in desks in a classroom. Each packetincluded nine displays, three for each condition. The experimenter used an overhead projectorto take the students through a sample experimental sequence. One set of the 10 originallydeveloped texts, displays (icon–maps, icon–lists, and title–displays), and spatial memory taskswas used for this sample. Students were told that they would be attempting to do two things


FIG. 4. Spatial memory display and corresponding spatial display recognition test.

at once and that they should try to do their best at both tasks. First, they would view one ofthe displays while listening to the experimenter read the text (each type of display was shownto the student at this point, to familiarize them with the three possible conditions). Then theywould view a memory display for 5 s. This would be followed by a 90-s free-recall test overthe text. Finally, students would view a memory test and have 10 s to select from a choiceof four the representation they had previously seen. This sequence of events was then repeatednine times for the actual experiment. The experimenter kept track of the time allocated foreach task by using a stopwatch and instructed students precisely when to turn pages of theirpackets.


Scoring. Spatial memory scores ranged from zero to three for each of the display conditions.Students were awarded 1 point for each display correctly selected on the spatial memory test.Three free-recall measures (represented nouns, nonrepresented nouns, and sentences) werescored out of a possible 30 points per measure. Each of the recall measures was counted foreach display presented, and scores were aggregated within conditions. Each display was pre-sented three times, and each had a corresponding text consisting of five sentences containinga represented noun and a nonrepresented noun, thus resulting in 15 possible correct responsesfor each free-recall measure. The ‘‘sentence’’ score was operationalized as student recall ofthe represented noun along with its corresponding nonrepresented noun. Each of the 15 correctresponses for each recall measure was scored as 0, 1, or 2, resulting in a total possible of 30points per measure. Students were awarded 2 points per measure if they recalled (a) the exactname of the represented noun, (b) the exact name of the nonrepresented noun, or (c) the exactnames of the two nouns appearing together in a sentence. One point was awarded for partialrecall of a noun name. An example of a text, a set of student responses, and the scores earnedfor this sample text follows.

Text: They saw mushrooms that grew alongside railroad tracks.They saw apples that dropped onto bed mattresses below.They saw a teepee that was built next to a stream.They saw wheat that was filled with giant grasshoppers.They saw a forest where a herd of reindeer lived.

Response: raindeer (sic)wheat field w/grasshoppers (sic)railroad tracks

Represented nouns Nonrepresented nouns Sentence

1 pt for wheat field (the 2 pts each, reindeer, grass- 1 pt, wheat field with grass-noun was wheat, not hoppers, railroad tracks hopperswheat field, thus allowing1 pt only)

5 1 pt 5 6 pts 5 1 pt

Results

All statistical tests were conducted at the α 5 .05 level of significance.For all statistically significant effects that involved a within-subjects factorwith more than two levels, Huynh–Feldt adjusted tests were performed andthe consistent results provided support for the assumption of sphericity. Forease of interpretation, raw scores have been converted to percentage correctscores in all tables and in text.

Represented and nonrepresented nouns. Table 1 presents means and stan-dard deviations for scores on the free-recall and spatial memory measuresby viewing conditions. A 3 (display) 3 2 (noun) repeated-measures ANOVAwas conducted on the numbers of represented and nonrepresented nouns re-called. There was a significant main effect of display, F(2, 68) 5 37.11,MSe 5 29.32, p , .001. A Tukey HSD test indicated that students recalledmore nouns when they viewed either icon–maps (M 5 74.80) or icon–lists(M 5 70.33) than they did when they viewed title–displays (M 5 50.13).


TABLE 1Means (and Standard Deviation) for Percentage Correct Scores on the Free-Recall and

Spatial Memory Measures by Viewing Conditions in all Four Experiments

Display viewed

Measure Title-display Icon-list Icon-map

Experiment 1Represented nouns 53.90 (18.62) 80.19 (16.49) 84.00 (9.42)Nonrepresented nouns 46.38 (21.55) 60.48 (21.21) 65.62 (16.78)Sentences 40.67 (22.17) 57.90 (22.20) 63.05 (17.57)Spatial memory score 60.00 (37.73) 59.30 (35.33) 52.37 (34.57)

(n 5 35)Title-display Name-list Icon-list Icon-map

Experiment 2Represented nouns 55.92 (17.74) 75.40 (18.76) 85.53 (13.19) 84.87 (11.71)Nonrepresented nouns 48.29 (21.26) 61.84 (21.73) 73.03 (18.66) 73.42 (19.70)Sentences 42.90 (23.82) 59.34 (23.08) 71.19 (17.84) 70.66 (21.35)Spatial memory score 64.45 (30.55) 65.80 (28.70) 59.20 (34.60) 63.15 (38.00)

(n 5 38)Icon-map Name-map Icon-list Name-list

Experiment 3Represented nouns 72.50 (19.41) 63.13 (19.37) 72.40 (21.17) 64.90 (17.58)Nonrepresented nouns 53.86 (22.27) 43.02 (21.01) 58.44 (24.35) 50.42 (22.19)Sentences 50.42 (23.43) 40.11 (21.87) 54.59 (26.11) 43.40 (23.18)Spatial memory score 38.55 (38.90) 45.85 (33.95) 33.35 (36.20) 48.95 (40.60)

(n 5 48)Experiment 4

Represented nouns 24.67 (11.92) 21.75 (11.17) 40.00 (13.92) 25.42 (17.17)Nonrepresented nouns 13.58 (13.42) 13.00 (12.17) 25.00 (17.08) 17.92 (15.83)Match 10.50 (12.42) 8.83 (10.50) 22.50 (18.17) 12.08 (13.42)Spatial memory score 52.60 (51.30) 27.80 (46.10) 45.00 (51.00) 15.00 (36.00)

(n 5 77)

There was also a significant main effect of noun, F(1, 34) 5 58.94, MSe 518.94, p , .001. Students recalled more represented nouns (M 5 72.70)than nonrepresented nouns (M 5 57.50). Both of these main effects werecompromised, however, by the significant interaction effect of display bynoun, F(2, 68) 5 12.71, MSe 5 5.54, p , .001. Although all three tests ofsimple effects for the effect of noun within each level of display were sig-nificant, the effect sizes for the icon–map (1.19) and icon–list (1.18) condi-tions were much larger than the effect size for the title–display condition(.64). By displaying this interaction graphically in Fig. 5, it appears that thedifference in recall between represented and nonrepresented nouns withinthe title–display condition is smaller than the differences within the icon–map and icon–list conditions.


FIG. 5. Display–noun interaction from Experiment 1.

Sentences and spatial memory scores. One-way repeated-measuresANOVAs were conducted on both the number of sentences recalled and thespatial memory scores with display as the independent variable. For recallof sentences, there was a significant difference among the three display con-ditions, F(2, 68) 5 21.72, MSe 5 19.93, p , .001. A Tukey HSD test indi-cated that students recalled more sentences when they viewed either icon–maps or icon–lists than they did when they viewed only title–displays. Forrecognition of the spatial memory displays, no significant difference wasfound among the three conditions, F(2, 68) 5 .64, MSe 5 .85, p 5 .53.Contrary to predictions consistent with the CR hypothesis, viewing icon-maps did not interfere more with the spatial memory task than did viewingicon–lists or title–displays.

Discussion

Experiment 1 investigated two assumptions of the CR hypothesis. First,we tested to see whether the facilitative advantages of maps over lists aredue to their spatial layout. For recall of represented and nonrepresentednouns, and for recall of sentences which contained both the represented andnonrepresented nouns, students recalled more when they viewed either anicon–map or icon–list than when they viewed only a title–display. Theseresults suggest that the spatial layout of the map is not as important for recallas are the visual properties of the map’s feature images. Though this findingmay seem to contradict other investigations of CR, in most of the previousstudies an icon-list condition was not used. Rather, only names of the featureswere listed.

Second, we tested to see whether retrieving information from a mentalrepresentation of a map would interfere more with a spatial-working-memorytask than would retrieving information from a mental representation of anicon–list or a title–display. Student performance did not differ on the spatial-working-memory task when they viewed maps, lists, or title–displays. Thissuggests that maps are not stored in a more spatial format than lists or title–displays. Though it may be argued that the learning task we used, free recall,did not require that students process the maps spatially, we wanted to further


investigate the findings of Kulhavy and his colleagues, who used free recallas the learning task in some studies of the CR hypothesis.

EXPERIMENT 2

Experiment 1 was designed to determine whether the facilitative effectsof maps when learning text are due to the spatial layout of the map. Theresults of Experiment 1 indicated that student recall was facilitated equallywell by both maps and lists containing icons and that both of these displayswere advantageous to a display which presented only the name of a fictionallocation. Thus, a text accompanied by a display containing mimetic iconsis more likely to be recalled than a text accompanied by a display withouticons, and it appears to make no difference whether the icons are arrangedin a map configuration or in a list. We designed Experiment 2 to furtherinvestigate this possibility that mimeticism, rather than physical layout ofmaps, is the important factor in facilitating text recall. The same three condi-tions which were used in Experiment 1 were used and a fourth condition wasadded—a name-list display—where the names of the icons were presented ina list format. If no differences were found between the two icon displays asin Experiment 1, and if both of these conditions improved recall over thename-list condition, then we would have additional support for the facilita-tive effects of the visual qualities of map images.

Method

Design and subjects. Display (icon–map vs icon–list vs name–list vs title–display) andnoun (represented vs nonrepresented) were again examined in a within-subjects counterbal-anced design. The subjects were 38 student volunteers attending Georgia Southern University.

Materials. The materials used in Experiment 1 were again used in Experiment 2. For eachof the counties used in Experiment 1, a name–list display was constructed in addition to thedisplays used previously. The name–list displays consisted of the title of the location at thetop and the names of represented nouns listed top-to-bottom, left-justified.

Procedure. The procedure was identical to that used in Experiment 1 except that two setsof displays and memory tests were used for the demonstration by the experimenter. Eachstudent viewed two icon–maps, two icon–lists, two name–lists, and two title–displays for atotal of eight displays. There were four different counterbalancing conditions so that roughlyequal numbers of students would view each display with each corresponding text.

Scoring. The scoring procedures were the same as in Experiment 1 except that each free-recall measure for each condition now ranged from 0 to 20 possible points because each typeof display was viewed twice by each student.

Results

Represented and nonrepresented nouns. Table 1 presents means and stan-dard deviations for scores on the free-recall and spatial memory measuresby display conditions. A 4 (display) 3 2 (noun) repeated-measures ANOVAwas conducted on the numbers of represented and nonrepresented nouns re-called. Once again, there was a significant main effect of display, F(3, 111) 5


44.51, MSe 5 11.19, p , .001. A Tukey HSD test indicated that studentsrecalled more nouns when they viewed either icon–maps (M 5 79.15) oricon–lists (M 5 79.28) than when they viewed name–lists (M 5 68.62),which resulted in higher recall than viewing title-displays (M 5 52.11).There was also a significant main effect of noun, F(1, 37) 5 43.11, MSe 58.98, p , .001. Students recalled more represented nouns (M 5 75.43) thannonrepresented nouns (M 5 64.15). The interaction effect of display by nounwas not significant, F(3, 111) 5 1.48, MSe 5 3.43, p 5 .22.

Sentences and spatial memory scores. One-way repeated-measuresANOVAs were conducted on the number of sentences recalled and the spa-tial memory scores with display as the independent variable. For sentencesthere was a significant effect, F(3, 111) 5 27.97, MSe 5 9.56, p , .001.Identical to the findings for the recall of nouns, a Tukey HSD test indicatedthat students recalled more sentences when they viewed either icon–mapsor icon–lists than when they viewed name lists, which led to higher recallthan viewing title–displays. For the spatial memory scores, the effect wasagain not significant, F(3, 111) 5 .31, MSe 5 .40, p 5 .82.

Discussion

Experiment 2 provided additional evidence that the visual properties ofmap features, rather than the physical layout of the map, facilitate recall ofrelated text. Subjects recalled more represented nouns and sentences whenpresented with either of the icon displays than when presented with thename–list display and earned higher recall scores when presented with thename–list rather than the title–display. This finding provides additional evi-dence for the facilitative effects of adjunct displays in general and points tomimeticism as an important feature in facilitating recall. As with Experiment1, no differences were found on the visual memory task. Again, this providesno support for the assumption that maps are stored in a more spatial formatthan lists or title–displays.

EXPERIMENT 3

The findings of Experiments 1 and 2 support the notion that the mimet-icism of the map features, rather than the physical layout of the map, facili-tates recall of related text. Experiment 3 was designed to test the effects ofcombined mimeticism and spatial layout by examining an additional display:a name–map. The displays created for this condition were identical to theicon–map displays, except that the icon was deleted leaving only the namesdispersed in the map space. The title–display condition was omitted sinceit did not provide any additional information for describing how text is pro-cessed and the results of Experiments 1 and 2 supported previous researchfindings that adjunct displays (versus no adjunct display, as in the title–


display condition) facilitate text recall (Darch & Gersten, 1986; Kulhavy etal., 1992; Levie, 1987; Robinson & Kiewra, 1995).

Method

Design and subjects. Feature-marker (icon vs name), display (map vs list), and noun (repre-sented vs nonrepresented) were examined within-subjects. The subjects were 48 different stu-dent volunteers attending Georgia Southern University.

Materials. Materials used in Experiment 2 were again used in Experiment 3. The title-displays were not used in this experiment and were replaced by the name–maps. The name–maps were constructed by simply deleting the icons from the icon–maps.

Procedure. The procedure was identical to that used in Experiment 2, except that the title–display condition was replaced with the name-map condition. Each student viewed two icon–maps, two icon–lists, two name–maps, and two name–lists.

Results

Represented and nonrepresented nouns. Table 1 presents means and stan-dard deviations for scores on the free-recall and spatial memory measures byviewing conditions. A 2 (feature-marker) 3 2 (display) 3 2 (noun) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the number of represented and nonrep-resented nouns recalled. There was a significant main effect of feature-marker, F(1, 47) 5 28.77, MSe 5 10.65, p , .001. Students recalled morenouns when they viewed icons (M 5 64.30) than they did when they viewednames (M 5 55.37). Most surprisingly, there was also a significant maineffect of display, F(1, 47) 5 4.15, MSe 5 10.77, p , .05, indicating thatstudents recalled more nouns when they viewed lists (M 5 61.54) than theydid when they viewed maps (M 5 58.13). There was also a significant maineffect of noun, F(1, 47) 5 40.37, MSe 5 26.84, p , .001. Students recalledmore represented nouns (M 5 68.23) than nonrepresented nouns (M 551.43).

The feature-marker by display [F(1, 47) 5 .44, MSe 5 12.01, p 5 .51]and feature-marker by noun [F(1, 47) 5 .24, MSe 5 3.85, p 5 .62] interactioneffects were not significant. However, the display by noun interaction effectwas significant, F(1, 47) 5 4.05, MSe 5 6.31, p 5 .05 (see Fig. 6). Simpleeffects tests revealed that although students’ recall of represented nouns didnot differ for maps and lists, F(1, 47) 5 .20, MSe 5 3.40, p 5 .66; recall

FIG. 6. Display-noun interaction from Experiment 3.


was higher for nonrepresented nouns when they viewed lists rather thanmaps, F(1, 47) 5 6.70, MSe 5 5.14, p , .05. Finally, the feature-markerby display by noun interaction effect was not significant, F(1, 47) 5 .07,MSe 5 2.89, p 5 .79.

Sentences. A 2 (feature-marker) 3 2 (display) repeated-measures ANOVAwas conducted on the number of sentences recalled. The analysis yielded asignificant main effect of feature-marker, F(1, 47) 5 16.69, MSe 5 8.81,p , .001. Students recalled more sentences when they viewed icons (M 552.50) than they did when they viewed names (M 5 43.75). The main effectof display was also significant, F(1, 47) 5 5.91, MSe 5 10.66, p , .05.Students recalled more sentences when they viewed lists (M 5 50.99) thanthey did when they viewed maps (M 5 45.26). The interaction effect offeature-marker by display was not significant, F(1, 47) 5 .54, MSe 5 8.75,p 5 .47.

Spatial Memory Scores. A 2 (feature-marker) 3 2 (display) repeated-mea-sures ANOVA was conducted on the spatial memory scores. The analysisyielded a significant main effect of feature-marker, F(1, 47) 5 4.94, MSe 5.51, p , .05. Students correctly recognized more spatial displays when theyviewed names (M 5 47.40) than they did when they viewed icons (M 535.95). The main effect of display was not significant, F(1, 47) 5 .06, MSe 5.37, p 5 .81. The interaction effect of feature-marker by display was notsignificant, F(1, 47) 5 .74, MSe 5 .45, p 5 .39.

Discussion

Experiment 3 investigated the combined impact of spatiality and mimet-icism on text recall. Students recalled more represented nouns than nonrepre-sented nouns, showed higher rates of recall when viewing icons than whenviewing names, and recalled more information when viewing lists than maps.Taken together, these findings strongly support the notion that it is the mimet-icism of the icons, not the spatial layout of the map, that is most importantfor facilitating recall of represented text. Also, it appears that the particularcharacteristics of spatiality associated with maps may actually be detrimentalfor recall of nonrepresented text in some conditions. Finally, the results ofthis experiment indicate that students may store icon displays in a more spa-tial fashion than name displays.

EXPERIMENT 4

The findings of the first three experiments support the notion that the mi-meticism of the map features, rather than the spatial layout of the map, facili-tates recall of related text. The method used in these experiments, however,differs somewhat from the method and stimulus materials used in previousinvestigations of conjoint retention (see Abel & Kulhavy, 1986; Kulhavy etal., 1993a; Schwartz & Kulhavy, 1981). In typical CR studies, participants


are presented with an intact map containing geographic features (such asrivers and mountains) serving as landmarks or additional locational informa-tion as well as human-made features (such as buildings), whereas in ourexperiments students received a very simple map outline with five featuresof varying types (farm, acorn, hills) displayed within the bounds of a fictionallocation. No additional locational information (information which could beused to help build a mental model of target feature locations) was includedon the stimulus maps in our first three experiments. In addition, the texts forthe first three experiments were read to the students as they studied the map,and the texts consisted of simple sentences illustrating a relationship betweena represented and nonrepresented noun, while other studies used texts whichwere more narrative and connected in nature. Finally, previous studies ofconjoint retention included instructions to the participants to use the visualdisplay to help them learn the text. We included no such explicit instructionsin the first three experiments. In sum, the major methodological differencesbetween our first three experiments and previous studies of conjoint retentioncentered around (1) differences in map stimuli, (2) differences in text, and(3) differences in explicit processing instructions.

Experiment 4 was designed to minimize these differences, while still pre-serving the stimuli differences we wished to investigate. Rather than the verysimplistic maps we used in the first studies, we used a City of Rome mapand accompanying text originally used in a 1993 study by Kulhavy et al.(1993a). The map was modified to reflect the conditions under investigationin our study (modifications described in detail below). Furthermore, we ex-plicitly instructed students to use the display with which they were initiallypresented to assist them in learning the text which followed.

Method

Design and subjects. Feature-marker (icon vs name), display (map vs list), and text recall(nouns, facts, and the match between the two) were examined in a mixed-model design. Thesubjects were 77 new student volunteers attending Georgia Southern University.

Materials. The text for this study was the same as that used by Kulhavy et al. (1993a),describing the city of Rome, Italy (see Appendix). The text named constructed (e.g., Coliseum;Temple) and natural geographic (e.g., Viminal Ridge; Tiber River) features in the city andgave a corresponding fact about each (e.g., The Palace provides a good example of the earlyuse of cement in construction.) A total of 20 human-made and geographic features were men-tioned in the text, 12 of which were selected as recall targets for our experiment. These 12human-made features were depicted in all four adjunct display conditions. We opted to sample12 of the 20 features described in the text rather than to test recall of all of them becausesome were more appropriate for use in our experimental manipulation than others. Since wewere examining the impact of icon versus name on recall, we needed features that could berepresented with mimetic icons as well as names. Furthermore, since we wanted to manipulatethe type of display, map vs list, we needed features which could be labeled with a name onlywithout changing the structure of the map (such as gate, as opposed to river). Taking thesefactors into consideration, we used the 12 human-made features as the recall targets for thisexperiment.


Four adjunct displays were created on 11 3 17-inch paper. Each condition included a copyof the City of Rome text on the same page as the display. Both map conditions were basedon the City of Rome map constructed by Kulhavy et al. (1993a). The name-map displayedthe names of all 20 features identified in the City of Rome text. Eleven of the human-madefeatures were also indicated by small squares placed above the name of the feature. The onlymodification we made to this map was to add a small square above the feature name ‘‘gate’’so that all 12 human-made features we intended to use for scoring purposes were marked inthe same fashion. The icon–map display was identical to the name–map except that mimeticicons were substituted for the small square markers used in the Kulhavy study and in ourname–map condition (see Fig. 7). The icon–list display listed, in two columns spaced evenlyon one half of the paper, the name and icon for each of the 12 human-made features targetedon the map displays. The name–list display simply provided, in two evenly spaced columns,the names of the 12 human-made features. The City of Rome text was placed on the left sideof the paper (horizontal orientation), while the list was placed on the right.

One spatial memory display was used. This display was selected (on the basis of itemanalysis) as the most difficult of the 10 used in Experiments 1–3. Packets were printed onwhite paper with goldenrod sheets used as shields to prevent students from seeing throughpages to the next stimulus item. The first page of each packet was an informed consent form.This was followed by one of the four adjunct visual displays (depending on the stimuluscondition for which the packet was designed), which were folded in half and inserted in thepackets; students were instructed to open these displays fully for viewing once the experimentbegan. Following the visual display was a blank sheet of goldenrod paper used as shield, thenthe spatial display, followed by a blank sheet of white paper for free recall. This page wasfollowed by a goldenrod shield, and the packet was completed with the spatial recognitiontest.

Procedure. Students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions according to thepacket of materials they received. Prior to beginning the experiment, the packets were orderedby condition (A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, etc.). Packets were then distributed to students individu-ally as they sat in desks in a classroom. Students were instructed to read and sign the informedconsent letter if they chose to participate in the experiment. Students were then told that theywould see a series of materials, each of which would be viewed for a time specified by theinstructor. After they were told to stop viewing a given page, they were not to return to thatpage. Students were told to read and study the visual display to help them learn the text. Thevisual display and text were viewed for a total of 31/2 min. Next, students were instructed thatwhen given the appropriate signal, they would turn past the goldenrod page to a white pageon which would be presented a different type of display. Students were told that they wouldhave 5 s to study and learn this display and were then told to turn to the dot display. After5 s, students were instructed to turn to the next page in their packet, a blank whitepage. Students were instructed at this time to write down everything they remembered aboutwhat they read. Three minutes later, students were told to stop writing and, when signaled,to turn past the next goldenrod page to the final page of the packet. They were given 10 s tocircle the number of the spatial dot display which corresponded to the dot display viewedearlier.

Finally, students were told to close their packets and indicate on the informed consent letter(by placing a ‘‘y’’ for yes or an ‘‘n’’ for no) if they had finished reading the text whichaccompanied the adjunct display. All students were then instructed to open their packets tothe text and to mark where they stopped reading. This measure was taken in an attempt tocontrol, if necessary, for any students who were not able to read the text in the allocated time.All students indicated that they did, in fact, finish reading the text.

Scoring. Spatial memory recognition scores were coded as 1 (correct) or 0 (incorrect) foreach participant. Three free-recall measures (represented nouns, nonrepresented nouns, andmatch) were scored with a possible 12 points per measure. The represented nouns scored were

FIG. 7. Icon-map display from Experiment 4. From ‘‘Why Maps Improve Memory forText: The Influence of Structural Information on Working Memory Operations,’’ by R. W.Kulhavy, W. A. Stock, M. P. Verdi, K. A. Rittschof, and W. Savenye, 1993, European Journalof Cognitive Psychology, 5, pp. 375–392. Copyright 1993 by Psychology Press Limited, Hove,UK. Reprinted with permission, and with permission of the authors.


the 12 nouns represented by a name and/or an icon in the four experimental conditions. Thenonrepresented nouns scored were the corresponding facts for each of the represented nounsas presented in the accompanying text. The ‘‘match’’ score was operationalized as studentrecall of the target noun along with its corresponding fact. Each of the 12 correct responsesfor each recall measure was scored as 0 (incorrect) or 1 (correct).

Results

Represented and nonrepresented nouns. Table 1 presents means and stan-dard deviations for scores on the free-recall and spatial memory measures byviewing conditions. A 2 (nouns) 3 2 (feature-marker) 3 2 (display) mixedANOVA was conducted on the number of nouns recalled with noun (repre-sented vs nonrepresented) as a within-subjects factor and feature-marker(icon vs name) and display (map vs list) as between-subjects factors. Theinteraction effects of feature-marker 3 display [F(1, 73) 5 2.81, MSe 54.49, p 5 .10], feature-marker 3 noun [F(1, 73) 5 1.87, MSe 5 1.43, p 5.18], display 3 noun [F(1, 73) 5 .32, p 5 .58], and feature-marker 3 displayby noun [F(1, 73) 5 .93, p 5 .34] were not significant. The main effect ofnoun was significant, F(1, 73) 5 41.36, p , .001. Students recalled morerepresented (M 5 27.92) than nonrepresented nouns (M 5 17.50). Therewas also a significant main effect of feature-marker, F(1, 73) 5 4.52, MSe 54.49, p , .05. Students recalled more nouns when they viewed icons (M 527.92) than they did when they viewed names (M 5 17.50). Finally, themain effect of display was significant, F(1, 73) 5 10.17, p , .01, indicatingthat students recalled more nouns when they viewed lists (M 5 27.13) thanthey did when they viewed maps (M 5 18.04).

Sentences. A 2 (feature-marker) 3 2 (display) factorial ANOVA was con-ducted on the number of sentences recalled. The main effect of feature-marker was not significant, F(1, 73) 5 3.62, MSe 5 2.82, p 5 .06. The maineffect of display was significant, F(1, 73) 5 5.71, p , .05. Students recalledmore sentences when they viewed lists (M 5 17.29) than they did when theyviewed maps (M 5 9.67). The interaction effect of feature-marker by displaywas not significant, F(1, 73) 5 1.85, p 5 .18.

Spatial memory scores. A 2 (feature-marker) 3 2 (display) factorialANOVA was conducted on the spatial memory scores. The analysis yieldeda significant main effect of feature-marker, F(1, 73) 5 6.66, MSe 5 .22, p ,.05. Contrary to the results of Experiment 3, students correctly recognizedmore spatial displays when they viewed icons (M 5 48.80) than they didwhen they viewed names (M 5 21.40). Neither the main effect of display[F(1, 73) 5 .92, p 5 .34 nor the interaction effect of feature-marker bydisplay [F(1, 73) 5 .06, p 5 .81] was significant.

Discussion

Experiment 4 investigated the effects of spatiality and mimeticism on therecall of connected, narrative text. The stimulus maps used in Experiment


4 were more similar to those used in previous studies of conjoint retention,as were the text and processing instructions provided to students. Studentsrecalled more represented than nonrepresented nouns, recalled more nounswhen they viewed icons than when they viewed names, and recalled morenouns and sentences when they viewed lists than when they viewed maps.As with Experiments 1–3, these findings support the notion that it is themimeticism of the icons, not the spatial layout of maps, that is important forfacilitating recall of represented text. Finally, the spatial memory results ofthis experiment are in opposition to Experiment 3, indicating that more stu-dents recognized spatial displays when they viewed icons than when theyviewed names.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Two research questions were investigated in this series of experiments.First, we asked whether it is the mimeticism of map features or their spatialarrangement, as proposed by the conjoint retention hypothesis, which ac-counts for the facilitative advantage of maps in the recall of related text.Second, we sought to determine if maps are processed more spatially thanlists by examining interference in the visuospatial sketchpad.

To examine the first question, we manipulated a series of display condi-tions. In Experiment 1, we found that students recalled more nouns whenthey viewed an icon–map or an icon–list than when they viewed a title–display. In Experiment 2, more nouns were recalled when students viewedeither of the two icon displays than when they viewed a name–list or title-display. There were no differences in either experiment between the icon–map and icon–list condition, which suggests that spatiality of a map is notas important as mimeticism of feature markers when recalling certain typesof text. In Experiment 3, icon displays were better than name displays, andfor recall of nonrepresented nouns and sentences, lists were better than maps.Experiment 4, which used stimulus materials more consistent with those usedin previous investigations of conjoint retention, indicated that students re-called more represented than nonrepresented nouns, that nouns were recalledbetter when students viewed icons rather than names, and that students re-called more nouns when they viewed lists than when they viewed maps. Theicon–list condition produced the best recall results for represented nouns inthis experiment. Furthermore, students recalled more sentences when theyviewed lists than when they viewed maps. The findings from all experiments,separately and when taken together, provide support for the facilitative ad-vantages of the mimetic characteristics of map features rather than the spatialarrangement of the map display as a benefit to text processing. We also foundevidence that spatial maps may actually be worse than linear lists when stu-dents attempt to recall information that is not represented in the display.

The CR hypothesis proposes that the facilitative advantage offered by


maps in text processing is due to the structural coherency which defines thespatial properties of the map and leads to a computational advantage in mapprocessing (Kulhavy & Stock, 1996). While our findings do not support thisclaim, we had some methodological differences which may prove to be criti-cal in finding the CR effect. Our methods in Experiments 1–3, and to agreater extent in Experiment 4, were similar to those used in several of thestudies which support CR, though they still differed in a few ways. In studiesinvestigating maps as aids for text processing, students are often given themap for some period of time (ranging from 45 s to 5 min) before they arepresented with the text they are to learn and are instructed to use the mapto assist them in learning the text (Kulhavy et al., 1993a, 1993b; Stock, Kul-havy, Peterson, Hancock, & Verdi, 1995). We altered this methodology bypresenting the map simultaneously with the text, for a period of approxi-mately 20 s in Experiments 1–3 and for a period of 31/2 minutes in Experi-ment 4. This modification was implemented because we believed that thesimultaneous presentation of text and a map is more similar to what studentsactually experience in classrooms, especially at the postsecondary level,where students are likely to view visual displays while simultaneously lis-tening to verbally presented (i.e., a lecture) or visually presented (i.e., a text-book) information. It is possible that the duration of map presentation didnot allow adequate time for encoding the structural features of the map orthat simultaneous presentation of the map and text does not encourage theallocation of attention to the map display. Nonetheless, it appears that whentask-demand conditions are used which may be encountered in typical class-room environments, maps are no better, and may even be worse, at facilitat-ing the recall of text than are lists of icons.

Furthermore, unlike previous studies (Kulhavy et al., 1993a, 1993b; Stocket al., 1995) we did not explicitly instruct subjects to use the displays inlearning the text in Experiments 1–3. We instructed students that they wouldsimply be listening to a list of sentences while viewing a display. Thus, onecould argue that we did not provide a hard test of the CR model’s assump-tions. We did, however, find in all three experiments that students viewingone type of display demonstrated better recall than those who viewed anotherdisplay. Therefore, it seems that students were processing the adjunct infor-mation in a manner which allowed for better text recall in some conditionsthan others. The omission of explicit directions encouraging the learning ofa display as a means for remembering text is arguably a likely circumstancein an instructional situation. However, in order to maintain consistency withearlier investigations of conjoint retention and to provide a better test of theCR model’s assumptions, we modified our procedure in Experiment 4 andexplicitly told students to use the visual display to assist them in learningthe text. Our findings in Experiment 4 remain consistent with those of Experi-ments 1–3, that mimeticism, rather than spatiality, seems to explain the facil-


itative effects of the adjunct displays. Perhaps the critical omission to ourexperiments which accounts for findings which run counter to CR was anopportunity for students to encode the map prior to viewing the texts (cf.Arici, Schreiber, & Kulhavy, 1998). Regardless of whether simultaneous orsequential presentation is more likely to occur in a learning environment,CR uses a sequential presentation and we therefore have not replicated thetypical methodology with our varied stimuli.

Finally, the texts used in the first three experiments differed from thoseused in previous studies of CR (Kulhavy et al., 1993a, 1993b; Stock et al.,1995). While our texts presented a series of facts describing a relationshipbetween a represented and a nonrepresented noun, previously developedtexts tended to be more narrative in nature. Kintsch, Mandel, and Kozminsky(1977) found that students were better able to comprehend intact stories thanstories presented with their paragraphs scrambled. They attributed this im-proved recall to the implementation by the students of story schemas whichfacilitated interpretation of the stories. It is possible, then, that maps are moreuseful for remembering only certain types of texts, namely those that followmore typical story schemas than the texts we utilized. To investigate thispossibility, we conducted a fourth experiment in which a narrative text wasused—a text which had been used in previous investigations which sup-ported the conjoint retention hypothesis. The results of this experiment wereconsistent with the first three experiments we conducted: mimeticism, ratherthan spatiality, seems to be the key component in facilitating recall of textwhen the two are compared.

Our findings related to the differential spatial processing of maps versuslists are mixed. In Experiments 1 and 2, there were no differences in spatialmemory scores among any of the display conditions. In Experiment 3, how-ever, we found a main effect for feature-marker, indicating that subjects re-called spatial displays more accurately when they viewed displays containingnames of feature-markers than when viewing displays containing icons.There were no differences between the list and map conditions. It seems thatthe findings of Experiment 3 support the hypothesis that some visual stimuliare processed more spatially than others. The support, however, is for morespatial processing of icons over words rather than maps over lists. This find-ing is consistent with Baddeley’s (1992) notion of the two slave systems inworking memory. That is, it is likely that the icons were processed usingthe visuospatial sketchpad, thus causing interference with the spatial recalltask, while the names were processed using the phonological loop. Thesefindings also support dual coding theory (Paivio, 1986). Of course, it is alsopossible that the findings of Experiment 3 are spurious. Finally, the resultsof Experiment 4 are in direct opposition to those of Experiment 3. In Experi-ment 4, more students correctly recognized spatial displays when they


viewed icons than when they viewed names, though there were no differ-ences related to the type of display viewed.

The results of these four experiments, examined separately and when com-bined, point to the same conclusion: the mimeticism of icons, rather thantheir spatial layout, facilitates the recall of information from accompanyingtext. While our first three experiments may have differed significantlyenough from previous investigations of conjoint retention to raise the ques-tion of whether these experiments were in fact investigating the same as-sumptions, our fourth experiment was quite similar to previous investigationsof conjoint retention. It seems, then, that the remaining methodological dif-ference, the presentation of text concurrently with the presentation of thevisual display rather than before the presentation of the visual display, mayaccount for the differences in findings between our investigations and thoseof Kulhavy and his colleagues (Kulhavy et al., 1993a, 1993b; Stock et al.,1995). It is possible that this difference alone could have caused the consis-tently contradictory outcomes of our investigations vs those from previousstudies of the conjoint retention hypothesis. Thus, we cannot be completelycertain that we have called into question assumptions of this model untiladditional investigations are conducted in which the adjunct display is pre-sented prior to the text, along with the other manipulations and proceduresdescribed in the four experiments presented in this article.

APPENDIX

The city of Rome, Italy is one of the important cities of both the old andnew worlds. There are many interesting places and landmarks within Rome.The city itself is located next to the Tiber River where the bones of prehis-toric animals have been found. Then there is the Appian Way which wasone of the first paved roads to run out of Rome. Up on Mount Palatine arevast gardens that cover the ruins below them. And out along the Salt Roadis where one of the burial grounds was located. The Prison is well knownbecause Saint Peter was kept there until he was executed.

For centuries people have come to Rome to see the sights. For example,there is the Column which has the history of many battles carved on itssurface. Then one can view the Viminal Ridge which is the site of one ofRome’s great fires. Also, there is the Arch from which Constantine the Greatmade his last departure from Rome. Another instance is the Roman Forumwhere parades were held to celebrate a victory. Or there is the Stadium, partsof which were once used as a monastery.

Even today, tourists crowd the streets in summer to view historical loca-tions. The Palace provides a good example of the early use of cement inconstruction. Atop the Aventine Hill is the mausoleum erected for the Kingof Alban. Then there is the Island which is the traditional location for hospi-


tals in Rome. Of course, one can also see the Basilica where legal caseswere judged and settled. The Temple is where the famous statue of Marsoriowas once located.

The paths and byways of Rome are filled with people looking at Guide-books. They can view the Baths where Roman business meetings were oftenheld. Or, they can travel to the Monument which is a storage place for sacredrelics. Then on to the Gate, which had water running over its top. Peoplecan also see the Market that was covered with white marble. And then thereis the Bridge which was often used by senators in days gone by. Truly, Romecan be called the ‘‘Eternal City.’’1

REFERENCES

Abel, R. R., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1986). Maps, mode of text presentation, and children’s proselearning. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 263–274.

Arici, A., Schreiber, J., & Kulhavy, R. (1998). Using maps to facilitate the recall of associatedtext. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, San Diego, CA.

Baddeley, A. (1992). Is working memory working? The Fifteenth Bartlett Lecture. QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 44a, 1–31.

Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps. (trans. William J. Berg).Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.

Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1986). Direction-setting activities in reading comprehension: Arelation of two approaches. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 9, 235–423.

Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive pro-cesses. New York: Academic Press.

Kintsch, W., Mandel, T. S., Kozminsky, E. (1977). Summarizing scrambled stories. Memory &Cognition, 5(5), 547–552.

Kruley, P., Sciama, S. C., & Glenberg, A. M. (1994). On-line processing of textual illustrationsin the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies. Memory & Cognition,22, 261–272.

Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, J. B., & Caterino, L. C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and relateddiscourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 28–37.

Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1996). How cognitive maps are learned and remembered.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86(1), 123–145.

Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Peterson, S. E., Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1992). Usingmaps to retrieve text: A test of conjoint retention. Contemporary Educational Psychology,17, 56–70.

Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Verdi, M. P., Rittschof, K. A., and Savenye, W. (1993a).Why maps improve memory for text: The influence of structural information on workingmemory operations. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 375–392.

1 From: ‘‘Why maps improve memory for text: The influence of structural information onworking memory operations,’’ in European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 375–392, by R. W. Kulhavy, W. A. Stock, M. P. Verdi, K. A. Rittschof, and W. Savenye, Copyright1993, reprinted by permission of Psychology Press Limited, Hove, UK, and by permissionof the authors.


Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Woodard, T. A., & Haygood, R. C. (1993b). Comparing elabo-ration and dual coding theories: The case of maps and text. American Journal of Psychol-ogy, 106, 483–498.

Kulhavy, R. W., Woodard, K. A., Haygood, R. C., & Webb, J. M. (1993c). Using maps toremember text: An instructional analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63,162–169.

Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousandwords. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–69.

Levie, W. H. (1987). Research on pictures: A guide to the literature. In D. M. Willows &H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Basic research (Vol. I, pp. 1–50). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford Univ.Press.

Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., & Fan, A. (1996). Evidence for conjoint retention ofinformation encoded from spatial adjunct displays. Contemporary Educational Psychol-ogy, 21, 221–239.

Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superiorto outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467.

Schwartz, N. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Map features and the recall of discourse. Contem-porary Educational Psychology, 6, 151–158.

Schwartz, N. H., & Phillippe, A. E. (1991). Individual differences in the retention of maps.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 1–12.

Stock, W. A., Kulhavy, R. W., Peterson, S. E., Hancock, T. E., and Verdi, M. P. (1995). Mentalrepresentations of maps and verbal descriptions: Evidence they effect text processingdifferently. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 237–256.

Tippett, L. J. (1992). The generation of visual images: A review of neurological research andtheory. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 415–432.

Role of Mimeticism and Spatiality in Textual Recall

Documents

Transcript of Role of Mimeticism and Spatiality in Textual Recall