Abstract
The relationship between vivid visual mental images and unexpected recall (incidental recall) was replicated, refined, and extended. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to generate mental images from imagery-evoking verbal cues (controlled on several verbal properties) and then, on a trial-by-trial basis, rate the vividness of their images; 30 min later, participants were surprised with a task requiring free recall of the cues. Higher vividness ratings predicted better incidental recall of the cues than individual differences (whose effect was modest). Distributional analysis of image latencies through ex-Gaussian modeling showed an inverse relation between vividness and latency. However, recall was unrelated to image latency. The follow-up Experiment 2 showed that the processes underlying trial-by-trial vividness ratings are unrelated to the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), as further supported by a meta-analysis of a randomly selected sample of relevant literature. The present findings suggest that vividness may act as an index of availability of long-term sensory traces, playing a non-epiphenomenal role in facilitating the access of those memories.
Highlights
People often report they experience vivid spontaneous visual mental images in situations in which they have to recall something they did not expect to recall
Preliminary analyses were conducted on the empirical distributions of raw response times (RTs) for each level of vividness
Images produced for the VVIQ2 were significantly more vivid (M vviq2 = 5.68, SDvviq2 = 0.62) than vividness for static images [t (38) = 3.88, p < 0.0001], and dynamic images [t (38) = 2.83, p < 0.01].These data may be interpreted as evidence that participants were generally much more confident in their imagery abilities than what they were capable of demonstrating during the experimental procedure
Summary
People often report they experience vivid spontaneous visual mental images in situations in which they have to recall something they did not expect to recall (incidental recall). Many preceding studies either confounded vividness with other variables, or did not appropriately interpret the validity criteria by anchoring the vividness construct to models of memory and verbal report underlying processes This is a situation analogous to the one denounced years ago by Ericsson and Simon (1980) in the context of models of verbal reports, instruments such as vividness ratings/scale/questionnaires seem to be used in a brute empirical fashion, without considering a satisfactory a priori theory of the processes involved in the measurement instruments themselves. The self reports were successfully employed in several previous studies, where the findings were consistent with both VVIQ research and new results outside the VVIQ’s realm of individual differences, which demonstrates that it is a reasonably robust measure
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
