The Effect of Imageable Language on the Recall of Textually Transmitted Information

Past research has shown that the processing of highly imageable language in the visual form integrates information from the visual, auditory, memory, and semantic networks to arrive at a determined meaning faster than the processing of normal language, activating the typical language network in addition to several other areas of the brain to assist in this process (Banich & Compton, 2018; Bedny & Thompson-Schill, 2006; Caplan & Madan, 2016; Fujii et al., 2016; Hickok & Poeppel, 2007; Hilverman et al., 2017; Jefferies et al., 2009; Richardson, 1976; Swaab et al., 2002). As a result, I suggest that imageable language is processed faster, assigned meaning faster, and promotes better reading comprehension. Hypothesis: In the context of reading an excerpt of text, I hypothesize that a reading sample with a greater amount of imageable language (and therefore a higher imageability rating) will promote better comprehension than a reading sample with a lesser amount of imageable language. Methods: In order to assess reading comprehension, the present study involved an experiment that tested participants' recall of information contained within an excerpt of text by means of a recall questionnaire. Participants were given one of three variations of a text excerpt, all of which contained the same information. The first variation was a Wikipedia article excerpt, the second was a Simple English Wikipedia excerpt, and the third was a Wikipedia article excerpt that had been modified, using a computer program created in collaboration with my advisor, to contain more imageable language. To ensure that no information was maintained in short-term memory, participants completed the Lexical Decision Task for about five minutes between reading the text and administration of the questionnaire. Results:The results showed only one significant difference between the recall scores of the three conditions: the recall scores of participants in the standard Wikipedia (EN) condition were significantly higher than those of participants in the imageability Wikipedia group (IM) (t(12) = 2.21, p = .048). Conclusion: This result contradicted the proposed hypothesis and suggested issues with the reliability and validity of the experimental paradigm.