Coordinating visual and kinaesthetic memory codes.

K M Newell; D C Shapiro; M J Carlton

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02147.x

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 486868

Coordinating visual and kinaesthetic memory codes.

K M Newell·D C Shapiro·M J Carlton

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Four experiments examined the Connolly & Jones (1970) model which postulates that translation between modalities in the cross-modal paradigm occurs before storage in short-term memory. In general, the results provided no support for the translation notion. Delaying until the end of the retention interval knowledge of the reproduction mode failed to produce a matching performance decrement. Subjects were able to maintain the code of original presentation through the retention interval even when they did not expect reproduction to be in this mode. In addition, the asymmetry in the cross-modal matching of visual (V) and kinaesthetic (K) information, whereby K-V performance is more accurate than V-K performance, was found to occur only under certain visual display conditions. The implications of these findings for general models of cross-modal translation were discussed.

Explore related subjects

Cues Female Humans Kinesthesis Male Motor Skills Retention, Psychology Visual Perception Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

K M Newell, D C Shapiro, M J Carlton. 1979. Coordinating visual and kinaesthetic memory codes.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02147.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Similar effects of a motion-in-depth illusion on manual tracking and perceptual judgements.

We previously demonstrated that changing the apparent extent of a target's apparent motion-in-depth, by manipulating pictorial depth cues in the surrounding, affected perceptual judgements and manual pursuit to the same extent. Here, we investigated whether a different manipulation of the extent of motion (expanding and contracting the object itself) also has the same effect on both tasks. Objects were presented that changed in size as they moved on an elliptical path. The size was related to the object's position in the sagittal plane, suggesting additional motion in depth; therefore the illusion was expected to affect sagittal measures for both perception and action. We measured manual tracking and perceptual judgements of the lateral and sagittal extents of the object's elliptical trajectories. A significant correlation was found across subjects between the effect of the illusion on the perceptual and the motor task. As expected, the illusion only had a significant influence on the sagittal dimension. The size of this illusory effect was equal for perception and action.

Cues↗

PubMed2003

Changing perspective within and across environments.

Perspective change within a single environment is a slow and effortful process. However, little research has addressed perspective change across multiple environments. Using a task-set switching paradigm, subjects judged spatial relationships between target locations from differing perspectives. Response times were longer when successive trials probed different perspectives. However, this cost was greater when perspective was changed within a single environment compared to when it was changed across two environments. This result indicates that the processing of perspective change, and perhaps general spatial reasoning, differs in these two cases. Implications for theories of perspective change and environmental knowledge are discussed.

Cues↗

PubMed2003

An evidential support accumulation model of subjective probability.

A model of cue-based probability judgment is developed within the framework of support theory. Cue diagnosticity is evaluated from experience as represented by error-free frequency counts. When presented with a pattern of cues, the diagnostic implications of each cue are assessed independently and then summed to arrive at an assessment of the support for a hypothesis, with greater weight placed on present than on absent cues. The model can also accommodate adjustment of support in light of the baserate or prior probability of a hypothesis. Support for alternatives packed together in a "residual" hypothesis is discounted; fewer cues are consulted in assessing support for alternatives as support for the focal hypothesis increases. Results of fitting this and several alternative models to data from four new multiple-cue probability learning experiments are reported.

Cues↗