Recognition of previously labeled or unlabeled pictures by 5-year-olds and adults

JOURNAL

OF EXPERIMENTAL

CHILD

21.40-45

PSYCHOLOGY

(1976)

Recognition of Previously Labeled or Unlabeled Pictures by 5-Year-Olds and Adults E. NELSON

KEITH New

School.for

Social

Research

AND STEPHEN The Johns

M. KOSSLYN Hopkins

University

Pictures accompanied by spoken descriptive labels or unaccompanied by labels were presented, and then pictures alone were shown in tests for recognition. Adults and S-year-olds more often recognized the previously labeled pictures than the previously unlabeled pictures, but reaction-times were unaffected by labeling. These findings fit the view that recognition, like recall, involves active encoding and systematic retrieval processes. In contrast to previous data showing no developmental changes, fewer recognition errors were made by adults than by S-year-olds.

There is little doubt that improved skill in using language to facilitate information storage and retrieval is an essential aspect of the developing child’s improving success in many memory and cognitive tasks. However, virtually all of the evidence supporting this proposition has come from tasks in which children must recall, rather than recognize, a set of previously presented words or pictures (e.g., Hagen & Kingsley, 1968; Flavell, 1970; Cole et al., 1971). For recognition, in contrast, it has not been determined whether or not direct verbal labeling of items has an effect upon children’s performance. But, as recognition has often been assumed to be a rather automatic process less dependent than recall upon active encoding strategies, it could be expected that appropriate verbal labels for pictures or objects would have little effect upon subsequent recognition of those pictures or objects. Perhaps this expectation underlies the apparent lack of previous direct development evidence on the question. Certainly it has been the case that a preponderance of evidence on memory development has emphasized on one hand developmental changes in recall of information, and, on the other hand, the Tom Schumacher and Cheryl Quinn especially deserve thanks for assistance in the conduct of this study. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Keith E. Nelson, Graduate Faculty Center, New School for Social Research. 65 Fifth Avenue, New York. N.Y. 10003. 40 Copyright 0 1976 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

RECOGNITION

OF PICTURES

41

lack of developmental changes in recognition performance (Brown & Scott, 1971; Nelson, 1971). Our own view is that children and adults can use active coding strategies-including labeling-to maximize both recognition and recall of information. This view rests upon an assumption that recognition and recall involve similar rather than distinct processes. In the present investigation, we examine the role of verbal labels in picture recognition by 5-year-olds and adults. In one experimental condition pictures of realistically portrayed subjects and pictures of abstract forms were presented without verbal labels. Descriptive labels were provided for these pictures in a second condition. After initial presentation, all pictures were included in a two-choice recognition test paradigm. The two central questions in this study are: (1) Do children and adults use verbal labels to increase their recognition accuracy, and (2) is the time required to make a recognition choice influenced by the use of the labels? METHOD

The same materials were employed and the same procedures were followed with 5-year-olds and adults. Each subject was tested individually. Subjects and groups. College-age adults and 5-year-olds (median age = 5-3) attending nursery school were the subjects. Picture labels were provided for 15 subjects of each age. An additional 15 subjects of each age were not provided labels for the pictures. Procedure. Each subject viewed a series of 24 projected slides presented consecutively. Viewing time for each slide was 3.93 set, with an interval between slides of 1.07 sec. Twelve realistic slides and 12 slides of abstract forms (puzzle pieces; varying in shape, color, and pattern) were randomly distributed within the series. These 24 slides were drawn from a pool of 48 slides; the remaining slides, similar to the presented slides in complexity and detail, served as “distracters” in subsequent recognition tests. As indicated above, some subjects simply viewed each of the 24 slides but for other subjects the experimenter read a descriptive verbal label for each slide as it was presented. The labels employed were 4-word labels, judged by three adults (not Ss) to be appropriate descriptions for aspects of the corresponding pictures. For example, one abstract slide was labeled “black and brown stripes” and one realistic picture was labeled “woman with long neck.” In a series of recognition choices which directly followed the presentation series, no labels were provided by the experiment for any subject. There were 24 choices in this test series (identical for all subjects). Each choice consisted of two slides projected side-by-side; one “old” slide from the presentation series and one “new” slide which the subject never before had seen. Each new (or “distractor”) abstract slide was paired with an old abstract slide, and, similarly, pairs of old and new

42

NELSON

AND KOSSLYN

realistic pictures were used. Except for this constraint, the pairings of old and new slides was randomly determined. A reaction-time clock started upon projection of the pair of slides and the clock was stopped when the subject pressed one of two response buttons to indicate which slide had been seen previously. Instructions given the subjects were to press the button-right or left-directly in front of the picture which had been shown before, and to press that response button as soon as they knew which picture was familiar. On each test trial the experimenter recorded the subject’s choice and the reaction time (RT). Analyses. The number of errors made by subjects entered an analysis of variance with age and labeling as between-subject factors and type of picture (realistic, abstract) as the single within-subjects factor. The same design was used in the case of RTs, but in this case the data from each subject consisted of one mean RT across all correct recognition choices for realistic slide pairs and another mean RT for all correct recognition choices across abstract slide pairs. Thus the RT data analyzed were mean RTs to reach correct recognition decisions to realistic and abstract pictures. RESULTS Errors

Verbal labels markedly reduced recognition errors. Subjects who initially viewed 24 pictures accompanied by spoken labels subsequently averaged only half as many recognition errors (3.26) as subjects who initially viewed the same pictures but without labels (6.80). This main effect was highly significant, F(1, 56) = 45.99, p c .OOl. Two additional effects of interest were evident: (1) Children made many more errors than adults (Mean = 6.76 and 3.30; F(1, 56) = 44.27, p < .OOl); and (2) average errors (4.13) for the 12 abstract pictures were higher than average errors (0.90) for the 12 realistic pictures (F(1, 56) = 358.04,~ < .OOOl). These two factors interacted with the effect of labels (F(1, 56) = 18.46, p < .OOl), as the pattern of recognition scores in Table 1 demonstrates. This interaction rests upon only two exceptions TABLE MEAN

PERCENT

1

CORRECT

Abstract pictures

RECOGNITION

Realistic pictures

Age groups

No labels

Labels

No labels

Labels

Syear-olds Adults

48 61

66 87

79 98

94 98

RECOGNITION

OF PICTURES

43

to the three result trends stated above. First, adults made virtually no errors (0.20), whether labels were or were not provided, on realistic pictures, and, secondly, children were nearly as skilled as adults at recognizing realistic, labeled pictures (F(1, 56) = 2.00, p > .lO). This interaction merits little discussion because the performance of children (100% accuracy) in several conditions or adults approached “ceiling” and because children were at a “floor” of chance-level recognition for unlabeled abstract pictures. In general, then, the results are captured by the simple, separate effects of labels, age, and type of picture. Labels facilitated recognition of realistic or abstract pictures by children and abstract pictures by adults. Whether labeled or not, realistic pictures were more often recognized than abstract pictures-by children as well as by adults. And Syear-olds performed less well than adults on labeled abstract pictures, unlabeled abstract pictures, and unlabeled realistic pictures. (For each individual comparison described above, F(1, 56) I 7.56, p < -01). Reaction

Times

Despite sharp differences in terms of errors, there was no significant difference between reaction times for recognition choices involving labeled (mean RT = 2.87 set) and unlabeled (mean RT = 2.94 set) pictures (F < 1). In line with error patterns, however, more proficient performance was shown by adults than by 5-year-olds (mean RTs = 2.46 and 3.35 set; F(1, 56) = 69.63, p < .OOl) and for realistic pictures rather than abstract pictures (mean RTs = 2.72 and 3.09 set; F(1, 56) = 32.07, p < .OOl) Both age groups showed faster RTs for realistic than for abstract pictures-and to similar degrees, as the effects of age and picture-type did not interact (F(1, 56) = 1.6, p > . 10). DISCUSSION

When pictures were later to be recognized, 5-year-olds profited by the provision of appropriate verbal labels for the pictures at initial presentation. To a similar extent, adults showed better recognition for previously labeled pictures than for previously unlabeled pictures-although this effect could be seen only for the relatively hard-to-recognize pictures, the abstract slides. This evidence suggests that recognition memory may be more complex in both children and adults than has traditionally been assumed. Instead of viewing recognition as a process separate from and simpler than recall (cf. Kintsch, 1970), we propose as a working hypothesis that similar factors of active coding, rehearsal, and systematic search are relevant to both recognition and recall (cf. Mandler, 1972). Distinctions between recognition and recall then may be sought in terms of when, how, and why such factors come into play.

44

NELSON

AND

KOSSLYN

An influential role of labelling in recognition memory for pictures is indicated by the present data, but further research is required to clarify that role. We need to know how labels could reduce errors, even though the children and adults were not required to retrieve or recall the label. A first question is whether or not labels, in fact, are stored and retrieved. One possibility is that labels favorably influence the sort of perceptual information that is stored, but that labels are not stored. From this viewpoint, the lower error rates for labeled versus unlabeled pictures wouId depend solely upon the quality of the perceptual information encoded under the label’s influence. In future studies, a range of tests which tap label recognition and label recall as well as picture recognition would be valuable in determining whether the label is fully or partially retrieved at the time of picture recognition. If the label is available at recognition testing a series of further questions arises. Is the label retrieved more slowly (cf. Paivio, 1971, p. 179) than associated perceptually-encoded information? The present results could indicate either that the label is not available or that it is retrieved at about the same rate as associated information-reaction-times were not affected by labeling whereas recognition accuracy improved when picture labels were provided. Certainly much more information is necessary on this question, including perhaps RTs to label recognition. An additional issue to be determined is whether subjects generate new labels which are then used to aid retrieval of previous labels. And, finally, in reaching a recognition decision about prior viewing of a picture, how heavily does the subject weigh labeling information in comparison with nonverbal information? Adults’ recognition surpassed children’s recognition. This outcome contrasts sharply with many findings that recognition performance by younger and older subjects is closely comparable (Nelson, 1971; Brown & Scott, 1971). Such typical findings have been interpreted as evidence of an unchanging basic memory “capacity” (Olson, 1973) with development, but the present results and other recent work (e.g., Haith et al., 1971) raise serious doubts that recognition tasks simply assess basic “capacity.” Instead, we stress again that performance in any recognition task may reflect processes also at work in recall-including systematic encoding and retrieval. This view carries the implication that not only verbal labelling but also many other techniques and strategies effective in facilitating recall also should affect recognition performance. REFERENCES Brown, Cole.

A., & Scott, M. S. Recognition memory for pictures in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1971, 11,401-412. M., Gray, J., Glick, J.. & Sharp. D. The cultural context of/earning and thinking. New York: Basic Books. 1971.

RECOGNITION

OF PICTURES

45

Flavell, J. Developmental studies of meditated memory. In H. W. Reese and L. P. Lipsett (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 5) New York: Academic Press, 1970. Hagen, J. W., & Kingsley, P. R. Labeling effects in short-term memory. Child Development, 1%8, 39, 113-121. Haith, M. M., Morrison, P. J., Sheingold, K., & Mindes, P. Short-term memory for visual information in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1971, 9,454-469. Kintsch, W. Models for free recall and recognition. In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Mandler. G. Organization and recognition. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Nelson, K. E. Memory development in children: evidence from nonverbal tasks. Psychonomic Science, 197 1, 25,346-348. Olson, G. M. Developmental changes in memory and the acquisition of language. In T. E. Moore (Eds.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Paivio, A. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, 1971. RECEIVED

December 11, 1974; REVISED March 19, 1975