[acb-hsp] Imeragery Limitations in congenitally blind

[J.Rayl]

Imagery limitations in totally congenitally blind subjects.

Author:

de Beni, Rossana1; Cornoldi, Cesare1U degli Studi, Padua, Italy

Publication info:

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14. 4 (Oct 1988):

650-655.

ProQuest document link

Abstract:

Research on totally blind subjects performing tasks that involve visual imagery has

often shown that they do not behave differently from matched sighted subjects, even

when their blindness is congenital. If visual imagery is based on visual perception,

such tasks may not require visual imagery. In the present article visual images are

considered as representations maintaining some properties of visible objects and

constructed on the basis of information from various sources. Owing to the absence

of visual experience, the limitations of such representations are explored in a series

of experiments requiring memorization of single nouns, pairs of nouns, or triplets

of nouns associated with a cue noun. Recall by blind subjects was impaired when multiple

interactive images (with noun pairs and triplets) are formed. The poorer recall of

blind subjects reflected also loss of order information. Recall was better for both

groups with locative noun cues and high-imagery targets. (PsycINFO Database Record

(c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Links:

Look for Full-Text

Full Text:

Contents

Abstract

Experiment 1

Method

Subjects

Materials

Procedure

Results

Experiment 2

Method

Subjects

Materials

Procedure

Results

General Discussion

Show less

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Table 2

Show less

Abstract

Research on totally blind subjects performing tasks that involve visual imagery has

often shown that they do not behave differently from matched sighted subjects, even

when their blindness is congenital. If visual imagery is based on visual perception,

such tasks may not require visual imagery. In the present article visual images are

considered as representations maintaining some properties of visible objects and

constructed on the basis of information from various sources. Owing to the absence

of visual experience, the limitations of such representations are explored in a series

of experiments requiring memorization of single nouns, pairs of nouns, or triplets

of nouns associated with a cue noun. Recall by blind subjects was impaired when multiple

interactive images (with noun pairs and triplets) are formed. The poorer recall of

blind subjects reflected also loss of order information. Recall was better for both

groups with locative noun cues and high-imagery targets.

Research on blind people offers the opportunity of evaluating the differential effects

the handicap may have on other psychological processes. Because the main difference

is the absence of visual experience, which in the blind is complete when the handicap

is both total and congenital, most research has examined its influence on imagery

representations that are traditionally connected with visual experiences. The research

reported in this article is concerned with memory for verbal materials involving

imagery. In this particular area, the experimental work done so far (

Craig, 1973

;

Hans, 1974

;

Jonides, Kahn, & Rozin, 1975

;

Paivio & Okovita, 1971

;

Zimler & Keenan, 1983

) has provided results that are either ambiguous and variously interpreted (as in

the case of the blind remembering auditory items better than do controls but recalling

visual items as well as do controls) or are not different for blind and sighted controls

(see

Hampson, 1985

, for a review).

Evident differences between the sighted and the blind have been identified by

Paivio and Okovita (1971)

, who found that, in learning paired items with high- or low-visual or acoustic imagery,

the sighted recalled more items encouraging visual imagery than items promoting acoustic

imagery, whereas the opposite happened for the blind. However, the blind performed

better than the sighted when recalling acoustic items rather than performing worse

on visual items. In a similar task,

Zimler and Keenan (1983)

, by using a paired-associate task with words whose referents were high in either

visual or auditory imagery, observed that the blind, like sighted controls, recalled

more high-visual imagery pairs than any others. Furthermore, the high-visual imagery

characteristics of the stimuli did not impair the performance of blind subjects,

as predicted by the conceptual peg hypothesis (see also

Hans, 1974

).

However, by using more carefully selected stimuli, which included items with high-imagery

values on a single dimension (e.g., high-visual imagery items that were exclusively

visual and not tactile, such as

rainbow ),

Marchant and Malloy (1984)

found that the blind performed significantly worse than sighted controls in the

paired-associate recall of such items.

On the other hand, no differences have been found between sighted and blind subjects

in many other investigations. For example,

Jonides et al. (1975)

observed that instructions to imagine improved paired-associate recall in both blind

and sighted subjects.

Kerr (1983)

noted that incidental cued recall of objects imagined as spatially contiguous was

better than recall of those that were spatially separated, for both blind and sighted

control subjects. In two other imagery tasks (scanning of distances and of objects

imagined to be of different sizes), performance was similar in both blind and sighted

control subjects, too.

Zimler and Keenan (1983)

observed that in a recall task in which words could be grouped according to modality-specific

attributes such as color and sound, the blind performed as well as the sighted on

words grouped by color. Furthermore, in an incidental recall test for objects described

as either visible or concealed in imagery instructions, the blind, like the sighted,

recalled more visible than concealed targets.

The typical logic of such research is as follows: Visual imagery is based on visual

experience, and a person who has not previously had visual experiences should not

have visual images. Consequently, if blind performance is similar to sighted performance

on tasks thought to involve visual imagery processes, or if it is not affected in

the way expected on the basis of the hypothetical role of imagery, then visual imagery

probably did not affect the tasks. The inference is that the so-called visual imagery

tasks do not actually rely on processes specifically involving visual images (see,

e.g.,

Jonides et al., 1975

). In our opinion, the weak point of this argument is the presupposition that visual

images are necessarily the products of visual experience; rather, they may be representations

that are based on information collected through different sensory modalities and

therefore may maintain some of the properties of visual objects. We assume that people

go beyond the limitations imposed by the properties of single sensory channels and

construct representations that integrate information coming from different sensory

modalities. Consequently, the blind may have images that possess many essential characteristics

of visible objects, like spatial, textural, and figural properties of object images

and so forth, which are not necessarily based on visual perception (

Kerr, 1983

). Furthermore, the typical blind subjects involved in such experiments have simple

peripheral lesions but intact central nervous system functions, including presumably

some of the cortical areas involving vision.

Given this premise, the crucial point of the debate on visual imagery in the blind

should not concern the existence of specific imaginal representations, either in

the blind or in all people, but rather the distinctive limitations of images in the

blind. In this way one may identify the essential features of visual experience in

mental representations-features that cannot easily be substituted by other forms

of experience.

A first and apparently obvious way of studying such limitations could be to examine

how blind subjects process nouns that may be adequately known only through visual

experience (e.g., dragon, palm tree, tower): We call such nouns HI-NE, because they

have high-imagery value (HI) for sighted people but the blind have no direct experience

(NE) of them. In blind subjects, HI-NE nouns have low imagery ratings (

Cornoldi, Calore, & Pra Baldi, 1979

) but are not recalled more poorly than are HI nouns. Furthermore,

Sholl and Easton (1986)

observed that paired-associate recall in blind subjects was poorer for nouns with

unfamiliar references, but the same nouns were also less familiar and less well recalled

by the sighted.

A second way of finding specific limitations in the memory of blind subjects concerns

particular forms of imagery organizations of the items to be remembered, rather than

the characteristics of the items themselves. For example,

De Beni and Cornoldi (1985b)

asked blind and sighted adult subjects to use the method of loci in memorizing a

list of 20 items. Although the loci used by the blind appeared to be somewhat peculiar,

the mnemonic improved recall in a similar way in both sighted and blind groups. Thus

the visual experience deficit did not involve specific limitations in the use of

imaginal strategies.

The same subjects were then asked to memorize a list of 60 items divided into 20

triplets, by using the "progressive elaboration" strategy, to produce an interactive

image concerning the locus and the first item, and then the interactive image that

could be obtained by composing the resulting preceding image and the second item

of the triplet, and then the same for the third item, so as to obtain an overall

composite image. This strategy had appeared to be effective for normal people memorizing

three consecutive items with the same locus and image (

De Beni & Cornoldi, 1985a

) or items in the same position in different lists in the same progressive image

(

Bower & Reitman, 1972

). However, blind subjects failed completely on the task, having a mean recall (9.4

words) that was not only inferior to that of sighted subjects using mnemonics (40.8

words) but also to that of sighted subjects who did not (15.0 words). The small number

of blind subjects participating in that research did not allow a comparison with

blind subjects who did not use the technique. It was argued that the construction

of multiple interactive connections may require the formation of flexible visual

images, which are typically mediated by treating several pieces of information simultaneously,

as occurs in vision. Therefore, constructing such simultaneous images may be a specific

problem for the blind.

The present research is devoted to a deeper exploration of this kind of deficit,

by examining the recall of lists of single items, pairs of items, and triplets of

items, all having an imaginal anchor point in a location. With respect to the research

of

De Beni and Cornoldi (1985b)

, we intend to examine some methodological aspects more carefully. Because in that

research memorization of triplets for all subjects followed the memorization of single

items, perhaps the poorer performance by blind subjects simply indicated that they

were more affected by proactive interferences than were sighted subjects. Furthermore,

the loci chosen by the blind were different from those chosen by the sighted, involving

not only places but also actions (e.g.,

washing the dishes

rather than the sink

). Lastly, the material making up the two lists was different, because the 20-item

list included concrete HI nouns, abstract low-imagery nouns (LI), and HI-NE nouns,

whereas the 60-item list included only HI nouns.

In our first experiment of the present series, we included an equal number of HI,

HI-NE, and LI nouns in all lists to make them comparable and to study recall of these

items in blind and sighted subjects. The HI-NE nouns had referents that were very

familiar to the sighted subjects but quite unfamiliar to the blind ones. The requirement

to form interactive images was expected to introduce a general element of difficulty

for blind people, but one that should be particularly evident when a multiple interacting

image was required. Moreover, in general, recall by blind subjects was expected to

be less organized and to retain whole interactive representations to a much lesser

extent than that by sighted subjects.

We also explored whether the general difficulty for the blind on the task would be

less severe with LI nouns and greater with HI-NE items, relative to HI items. Prior

literature provided ambiguous results on this point and more systematic exploration

was needed. Nevertheless, given our hypothesis that the visual handicap does not

eliminate visual imagery but simply limits its use in complex tasks, we expected

greater differences between blind and sighted subjects because of the nature of the

task rather than the nature of the items.

Experiment 1

Method

Subjects

Ten totally and congenitally blind subjects, aged between 10 and 29 years (mean age

= 17 years and 10 months), 4 male and 6 female, were tested. Eight were students

attending schools corresponding to their age and 2 were teachers (with senior high

school diplomas and teaching certificates). Their visual handicap had never involved

any diseases of the central nervous system: Their blindness was due to retrolental

fibroplasia (5 cases), retinal dystrophy (1), pigmentary retinitis (1), neuritic

atrophy (2), and bilateral glaucoma (1).

Controls were 10 sighted subjects matched for age, sex, and school level. We checked

memory abilities by having the two groups of subjects undergo a paired-associate

memory test (see

Cornoldi & Soresi, 1980

, p. 99), which required the memorization of 12 pairs of nouns varying in imagery

value. The mean performance of the blind group (5.6 pairs;

SD

= 2.0) was slightly but not significantly superior to that of the sighted group (5.2

pairs;

SD = 1.8).

Materials

One list of 18 locative items and a list of 108 nouns were used. The locative items

concerned internal and external places (in translation):

town square, bathroom, cinema, field, street, courtyard, church, hill, kitchen, supermarket,

bridge, garden, living room, castle, tunnel, terrace, wood

, and

pavement

. The 108 nouns of mean frequency (frequency values between 4 and 90 per 500,000

according to

Bortolini, Tagliavini, & Zampolli, 1972

) were divided into three categories of 36 nouns in each of the following categories:

concrete HI nouns, abstract LI nouns, and concrete HI nouns for sighted subjects,

but with referents not easily experienced by blind subjects (HI-NE nouns).

Because a list of HI-NE nouns of such length was not available in the aforementioned

norms, it was constructed from a selection of all the HI nouns having the predetermined

frequency values, on the basis of the evaluations of five educators specialized in

teaching blind subjects. The HI-NE nouns were the following (in translation):

landscape, uniform, eagle, geranium, tiger, lame person, sunset, hut, trace, ray,

cloud, toad, tower, snake, fog, giant, pyramid, wall fresco, dawn, landslide, portrait,

candle, atom, clown, mirror, lighthouse, tomb, cell, gipsy, elephant, volcano, ballerina,

stain, lily, racetrack

, and

photograph

. The 108 words were randomly assigned for each subject so that he or she had three

lists: a

single list

with 6 HI, 6 HI-NE, and 6 LI nouns; a

pair list

with 6 pairs of HI nouns, 6 of HI-NE nouns, and 6 of LI nouns; and a

triplet list

with 6 triplets of HI nouns, 6 of HI-NE nouns, and 6 of LI nouns. List composition

was varied for each subject. Item characteristics (imagery value, frequency, length)

were balanced among the lists presented to each subject and across subjects.

Procedure

Subjects were tested individually with the three lists presented in different randomly

selected orders, which were exactly the same for blind and sighted subjects, for

partial counterbalancing. (The single list and pair list were given first to 3 subjects;

the triplet list was given first to 4 subjects.) Subjects were informed about the

nature of the task and instructed to use the progressive elaboration strategy. They

were instructed to learn the lists so as to be able, given the cue, to remember the

associated item(s) in the correct order. Some examples were given and subjects were

asked to indicate any problems. During list presentation, one locative item was presented,

followed 10 s later by one item, followed at 10-s intervals by the other item or

items in the case of pairs and triplets. After a longer (15 s) interval, the next

locative item was presented.

The memory test immediately followed list presentation: The locative items were given

in the same order as during presentation, and subjects were given 10, 20, and 30

s for recalling single items, associated pairs, and triplets, respectively. At the

end of the test, subjects were asked to indicate any other possible items, and to

illustrate the processes and images they had used during the task. A short rest was

then given, followed by memorization by subjects of the next list. A different progressive

image was required for each locus in each list. Subjects were thus asked to ignore

the preceding images when memorizing the successive lists.

Results

Table 1

contains the mean number of nouns varying in imagery value presented in the single,

pair, and triplet lists, recalled by the two groups of subjects.

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

Mean Numbers of Nouns Recalled in Experiment I

A 2 × 3 × 3 (ANOVA

) with one between-subjects variable (blind vs. sighted groups) and two within-subjects

variables (lists and the types of nouns) revealed that all the main effects were

significant. Sighted subjects recalled more words than blind subjects,

F (1, 18) = 8.79, p < .01, MS e

= 27.86; more pairs and triplets were recalled than singles,

F (2, 36) = 16.40, p < .001, MS e

= 13.42; and HI nouns were generally recalled better than were LI nouns,

F (2, 36) = 30.89, p < .001,

MS e = 6.17, for materials.

Furthermore, two interactions qualified these main effects. These were between groups

and lists,

F

(2, 36) = 3.54,

p < .05, MS e

= 13.42, with blind subjects' performance becoming increasingly poor relative to

sighted subjects' performance as the number of recall targets increased, and between

lists and materials,

F (4, 72) = 6.54, p < .001, MS e

= 4.83. The latter interaction was due to the fact that the superiority in recall

of HI over LI items was particularly evident with triplets (means = 10.3 vs. 5.7

nouns recalled) and least apparent with the single list (4.8 vs. 4.2).

Figure 1

illustrates the mean recall of items in the single, pair, and triplet lists in the

two groups of subjects, making a distinction between items that were completely correctly

recalled and in order (

ordered

) and items that were correctly recalled but misordered (

scattered

). A recalled item was considered as ordered only if it was associated with the correct

locative item and correctly located (in the case of pair and triplet lists) inside

a completely recalled pair or triplet. From examining

Figure 1

it is immediately clear that the typical increase in ordered recall with an increase

in the quantity of material is true for the sighted but not for the blind group.

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

The mean numbers of nouns recalled when presented in lists of singles, pairs, or

triplets by congenitally blind subjects and by a sighted control group either in

an ordered or in a scattered way, in Experiment 1

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

The mean numbers of nouns recalled when presented in lists of singles, pairs, or

triplets by congenitally blind subjects and by a sighted control group either in

an ordered or in a scattered way, in Experiment 1

Because the scores obtained by subjects with ordered and scattered recall appeared

to describe two different forms of recall that were negatively correlated, except

in the case of pairs, we decided to consider them as two levels of a recall factor.

We assumed that ordered recall was based on the organized mnemonic system, whereas

scattered recall probably involved a different retrieval activity based on other

cues. The inclusion of the performances from the different retrieval activities in

the same

ANOVA

allowed us to evaluate their role in relation to the other studied variables. A

2 × 3 × 2

ANOVA

was thus calculated with one between-subjects variable (groups) and two within-subject

variables (single, pair, and triplet lists; ordered or scattered form of recall).

The analysis confirmed the significant effects found previously, namely, main effects

related to groups,

F (1, 18) = 21.31, p < .001, MS e

= 29.8, and to lists,

F (2, 36) = 13.43, p < .001, MS e

= 18.78, besides a main effect owing to ordered recall being superior to scattered

recall,

F (1, 18) = 70.67, p

< .001, MS e

= 51.05. The interaction between lists and groups was again significant,

F (2, 36) = 5.94,

p < .01, MS e

= 18.78. Furthermore, all interactions involving form of recall (ordered vs. scattered)

were significant. The different behavior of the blind group is illustrated by the

second-order interaction between groups and form of recall,

F

(1, 18) = 10.09,

p < .001, MS e

= 51.05, and by the third-order interaction,

F (2, 36) = 6.38, p < .005,

MS e = 31.47.

As

Figure 1

shows, blind subjects' recall was less ordered, and this was particularly true for

the triplet list. Post hoc comparisons with the Newman-Keuls procedure revealed that

the number of ordered items recalled in the single list by the sighted group was

significantly lower than the number recalled in the triplet list, whereas the reverse

occurred in the blind group. This result was confirmed by the fact that the difference

between the two groups in completely correct (ordered) recall was not significant

in the case of the single list, whereas the difference increased and was significant

in the case of pairs and triplets.

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

The mean numbers of nouns recalled when presented in lists of singles, pairs, or

triplets by congenitally blind subjects and by a sighted control group either in

an ordered or in a scattered way, in Experiment 1

On the basis of the results of this experiment, it was not possible to examine the

effect of the loci attributes on performance. The blind know the environment less

well and their familiarity with the chosen loci may have been less good. The 18 loci

were evaluated by three judges with long experience of working with the blind, who

assigned a concreteness score for the blind group on a 7-point scale. Nine loci with

high concreteness value (>6) were thus identified, namely:

bathroom, church, garden, living-room, sidewalk, street, supermarket, terrace

, and kitchen

. They were distinct from the other nine loci and the number of associated items

recalled was considered separately. The blind subjects obtained a score of 20.9 items

recalled (over a total number of 54 presented items) on the items associated with

HI value loci and 21.7 on the other items. The respective values for sighted subjects

were 35.3 and 36.2. The characteristics of familiarity and concreteness of places

used as loci did not thus seem to influence performance.

Because the counterbalancing of order among single, pairs, and triplets was incomplete,

an analysis of the effects of order of presentation of the lists was impossible.

An inspection of the data shows that order did not clearly affect performance, because

the advantage in having one list presented either first, second, or third varied

widely across cases. Interviews with blind subjects confirmed that their problem

consisted in forming the progressive images with two or three items, a task that

in many cases appeared impossible to them.

Experiment 2

Not all the locative items in Experiment 1 may have been perfectly familiar to blind

subjects, and the fact that the cues were locative may have caused poorer performance

in blind subjects. In a second experiment, only the nine locative cues from Experiment

1 having a mean concreteness rating higher than 6 on the 7-point scale were used.

The other nine locatives were replaced with nine concrete nouns with high familiarity

and image value, for both blind and sighted subjects, taken from the list of

Cornoldi et al. (1979)

. In this way we could determine whether poor performance in Experiment 1 was due

to the particular nature of the cues used and, in particular, whether there was a

difference between performances with locative and nonlocative cues. Considering the

classic mnemonic value of the loci, we expected that they would have a facilitating

effect on memory but that concrete HI nouns as cues should further aid recall in

the blind, because blind people are less familiar with places in the physical environment.

Lastly, as Experiment 1 did not show a differential effect between blind and sighted

subjects on the nature of the stimulus material, we decided to use only concrete

material with high image and familiarity values even for the blind (HI materials).

If, as we hypothesized, the difficulties encountered by the blind were due to problems

in creating multiple interactive images independently of the nature of the material,

the results observed in Experiment 1 should be replicated in Experiment 2.

Method

Subjects

Ten totally and congenitally blind subjects, aged between 15 and 60 years (mean age

= 30 years and 9 months) and an age-matched control group of sighted subjects were

tested. Both groups had the same general characteristics as those in Experiment 1.

In this case, too, the groups did not significantly differ in their performance on

the paired-associate recall test (mean recall = 6.9 and 7.0, out of 12 possible items,

for blind and sighted groups).

Materials

A list of 18 cues, formed of 9 locative items (

bathroom, church, garden, kitchen, living-room, sidewalk, street, supermarket, terrace

) and 9 HI concrete nouns (

ball, body, cat, earth, glass, head, milk, radio, stone

) were used as stimuli.

A list of 108 nouns with the same characteristics as the HI concrete nouns of Experiment

1 were used as responses.

Procedure

The nine locative and nonlocative cues were presented in random order to each subject.

The other aspects of stimulus randomization and procedure were identical to those

in Experiment 1.

Results

Table 2

shows the mean numbers of items associated with either locative or concrete nonlocative

nouns recalled by the two groups in the single, pair, and triplet lists. A 2 × 3

× 2

ANOVA

with one between-subject variable (blind vs. sighted groups) and two within-subjects

variables (lists and cue types) with the dependent measure of the overall number

of nouns recalled was conducted and revealed that all the main effects were significant.

Sighted subjects recalled more words than did blind subjects,

F (1, 18) = 9.62, p < .01, MS e

= 75.40; recall increased with the number of targets,

F (2, 36) = 46.72, p < .001, MS e

= 17.51; and locative cues were more effective than nonlocative cues,

F (1, 18) = 5.67, p < .05, MS e

= 5.83. Furthermore, the interaction between groups and lists was significant,

F (2, 36) = 6.93, p < .005, MS e

= 17.51, with blind subjects benefiting less from increased numbers of items than

did sighted subjects. No other interactions were significant.

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

Mean Numbers of Nouns Recalled in Experiment 2.

Figure 2

illustrates the mean recall of items in the single, pair, and triplet lists in the

two groups of subjects, making a distinction between items that were correctly recalled

and in order (ordered) and items that were correctly recalled but misordered (scattered),

again following the system of classification of Experiment 1. A comparison between

Figure 1

and

Figure 2

shows that comparable results were obtained in the two experiments. The slightly

higher levels of performance in Experiment 2 are probably due to the elimination

of LI and HI-NE items from it.

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

The mean numbers of nouns recalled when presented in singles, pairs, or triplets

by congenitally blind subjects and by a sighted control group either in an ordered

or in a scattered way, in Experiment 2

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

The mean numbers of nouns recalled when presented in lists of singles, pairs, or

triplets by congenitally blind subjects and by a sighted control group either in

an ordered or in a scattered way, in Experiment 1

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

The mean numbers of nouns recalled when presented in singles, pairs, or triplets

by congenitally blind subjects and by a sighted control group either in an ordered

or in a scattered way, in Experiment 2

As in Experiment 1, an ANOVA

distinguishing between ordered and scattered recall was carried out. The 2 × 3 ×

2 × 2 analysis considered the same variables as in the earlier analysis but with

a fourth within-subjects variable added: ordered or scattered recall. This

ANOVA

revealed the same significant effects as the one that did not include the form of

recall variable, but the inclusion of the form of recall variable shed light on a

significant main effect,

F

(1, 18) = 58.01,

p < .001, MS e

= 49.73; a significant second-order interaction between groups and form of recall,

F (1, 18) = 14.36, p < .001, MS e

= 49.73; and a significant third-order interaction among groups, lists, and form

of recall,

F (2, 36) = 5.64, p < .01,

MS e = 18.75.

Figure 2

shows that the interactions are due to (a) ordered blind recall not increasing with

increased quantity of material, as occurs for sighted subjects, and (b) scattered

recall being greater in blind subjects.

Click to view image

Enlarge this Image.

The mean numbers of nouns recalled when presented in singles, pairs, or triplets

by congenitally blind subjects and by a sighted control group either in an ordered

or in a scattered way, in Experiment 2

A post hoc Newman-Keuls test carried out on the third-order interaction revealed

that the number of ordered single items recalled by sighted subjects was not significantly

higher than that recalled by the blind. Moreover, although blind recall did not increase

when passing from singles to pairs to triplets, for the sighted there was a significant

increase for the same sequence.

General Discussion

The present research shows that, in a group of congenitally and totally blind subjects

matched for memory ability with a group of sighted subjects, specific memory limitation

can be found. The blind group appears to be particularly disturbed by tasks requiring

the memorization of one or more items in connection with a cue. More precisely, the

limitations of the blind may be specified in two points. First, the interactive imagery

strategy required for the memory task impaired the memory performance of the blind

when more than one item had to be related to the locative cue. The difference between

blind and sighted groups also increased with the number of items. Second, blind subjects

were particularly impaired in recalling material in an ordered manner, evidently

drawing little advantage from the typical imaginal mnemonic aid offered by locative

(or other) cues and progressive elaboration. Moreover, both groups were aided in

the recall of HI over LI items, although this effect was slightly less evident in

the blind group.

These effects are typically connected with the use of visual imagery (see, e.g.,

Paivio, 1971

,

1986

). Our results suggest that totally congenitally blind people may encounter difficulty

in using visual imagery. Such a conclusion may be premature, however, because the

extensive literature shows that in some cases imaginal variables can affect blind

performance in the same way as can sighted performance; in our case, too, an effect

of imagery value on item recall was found. Blind subjects may use imaginal processes,

but ones that have specific limitations because of the absence of visual experience.

The main limitation concerns the ability to create multiple interactions in memory

with the support of a spatial anchor point. The failure to observe poorer recall

in the blind group for HI-NE items and locative noun cues may be interpreted on the

basis of

Sholl and Easton's (1986)

observation, that familiarity with a referent is only partially mediated by the

visual channel and, typically, levels of familiarity with referents of nouns are

equal in blind and sighted subjects. The problems for the blind appear to concern

multiple imaginal processes performed on items rather than single memory representations

of the item per se. In particular, the difficulty of the blind in creating composite

images may be due to their more typical serial processing of tactual or auditory

items that cannot take several pieces of information into consideration at the same

time. Furthermore, the less rich sensory experience of the blind may make it difficult

for them to build and transform images and to incorporate new items. Failures in

preceding research to find imagery differences between blind and sighted subjects

are, in our opinion, due to the fact that tasks requiring subjects to form simple

images are possible even for the blind.

The present research requires further exploration of the boundary conditions for

the effects found, to see to what extent our results depend on the progressive imagery

elaboration strategy, contrasted with linking or simultaneous image strategies (or

even with no-imagery instructions). Some recent results (

Cornoldi & De Beni, 1988

) suggest that the blind may also have difficulty, although to a lesser extent, in

using linking strategies. Cornoldi and De Beni asked totally congenitally blind and

sighted control subjects to memorize a series of 20 nouns, forming an interactive

image involving each item and the successive one, in such a way that each item (except

the first and the last) was included in two different interactive images. The blind

performed worse than did sighted on this task, whereas no differences were found

on another task in which common or bizarre images were suggested by the experimenter.

It was argued that the creation of complex and flexible interactive images may be

a general problem for the blind.

With regard to the debate among authors who favor a common format for the representation

of information in long-term memory (

Anderson, 1978

), or two or more formats (

Paivio, 1986

), we do not think that our results provide definitive evidence. We argue that imaginal

processes do exist and that the blind use them, but that such processes have particular

limitations. Nevertheless, from a propositionalist point of view, a different formulation

of our explanation or a different explanation could be given by considering, in particular,

that the more limited experience of the blind may give them a representation of meanings

which is more literal, less rich and less flexible, and consequently less suitable

for multiple and unusual connections.

References

1

. Anderson, J. R. (1978). Psychological Review.

2

. Bortolini, U., Tagliavini, C., & Zampolli, A. (1972). Lessico di frequenza della

linqua italiana contemporanea. Milan, Italy: Garzanti.

3

. Bower, G. H., & Reitman, J. S. (1972). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior.

4

. Cornoldi, C., Calore, D., & Pra Baldi, A. (1979). Perceptual and Motor Skills.

5

. Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Denis, M., Engelkamp, J., & Richardson, J.T.E.

(1988). Cognitive and neuropsychological approaches to mental imagery. Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Nijhoff.

6

. Cornoldi, C., & Soresi, S. (1980). La diagnosi psicologica nelle difficolta di

apprendimento. Pordenone, Italy: ERIP..

7

. Craig, E. M. (1973). Journal of Experimental Psychology.

8

. De Beni, R., & Cornoldi, C. (1985a). Acta Psychologica.

9

. De Beni, R., Cornoldi, C., Marks, D. F., & Russell, D. G. (1985b). Imagery

1. Dunedin, New Zealand: Human Performance Associates.

10

. Hampson, P. J. (1985). Imagery in the blind: A review.

11

. Hans, M. (1974). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society.

12

. Jonides, J., Kahn, R., & Rozin, P. (1975). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society.

13

. Kerr, N. H. (1983). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

14

. Marchant, B., & Malloy, T. E. (1984). Journal of Mental Imagery.

15

. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

16

. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.

17

. Paivio, A., & Okovita, H. W. (1971). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.

18

. Sholl, J. M., & Easton, R. D. (1986). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning.

Memory, and Cognition.

19

. Zimler, J., & Keenan, J. M. (1983). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning.

Memory, and Cognition.

Show less

Address for Correspondence:

Rossana De Beni, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università degli Studi di Padova,

Piazza Capitaniato 3 35100 Padova, Italy

© 1988 American Psychological Association

Subject:

Blind (major); Imagery (major); Memory (major); Congenital Disorders

Classification:

3299: Vision&Hearing&Sensory Disorders

Age:

Childhood (birth-12 yrs), School Age (6-12 yrs), Adolescence (13-17 yrs), Adulthood

(18 yrs&older)

Population: Human

Identifier (keyword):

visual imagery&memory ability, congenitally blind 10-29 yr olds

Methodology: Empirical Study

Publication title:

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Volume: 14

Issue: 4

Pages: 650-655

Publication date: Oct 1988

Format covered: Print

Publisher: American Psychological Association

Country of publication: United States

ISSN: 0278-7393

eISSN: 1939-1285

Peer reviewed: Yes

Document type:

Journal, Journal Article, Peer Reviewed Journal

Number of references: 19

Publication history :

Accepted date: 08 Oct 1987

Revised date: 21 Sep 1987

First submitted date: 21 Apr 1986

DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.650

Release date:

01 May 1989 (PsycINFO); ; 10 Jul 2006 (PsycARTICLES);

Accession number: 1989-16061-001

PubMed ID: 2972801

ProQuest document ID: 614329302

Document URL:

https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614329302?accountid=34899

Copyright:

©American Psychological Association 1988

Database: PsycARTICLES

Contact ProQuest

Copyright © 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. -

Terms and Conditions

Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63 at frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20121119/7d501914/attachment-0001.html>