Premium
Modality and retention effects in intra‐ and cross‐modal judgements of kinaesthetic and visual information
Author(s) -
Marteniuk Ronald G.,
Rodney Melanie
Publication year - 1979
Publication title -
british journal of psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.536
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 2044-8295
pISSN - 0007-1269
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb01710.x
Subject(s) - psychology , modal , modality (human–computer interaction) , stimulus (psychology) , cognitive psychology , visual perception , interval (graph theory) , communication , artificial intelligence , perception , neuroscience , computer science , mathematics , chemistry , combinatorics , polymer chemistry
Factors influencing intra‐ and cross‐modal judgements of visual and kinaesthetic distance information were studied. Specifically, predictions arising from the Connolly & Jones (1970) model in terms of these kind of judgements and the implications for separate visual and kinaesthetic memory stores were contrasted with a modality adeptness viewpoint (Pick, 1970) and an amount of information explanation (Friedes, 1974). In Expt 1, conditions of both intra‐ and cross‐modal judgements of visual and kinaesthetic distance information were studied where the amount of visual information was minimal. Results, reported in absolute error, indicated cross‐modal judgements to be worse than intra‐modal judgements but, contrary to the Connolly & Jones model, no cross‐modal asymmetry was found and both visual and kinaesthetic conditions exhibited a loss of information over a 20 s retention interval. These results suggested that amount of information about the stimulus was crucial for both immediate performance and retention over an unfilled interval. In Expt 2, similar conditions as in Expt 1 were used except that visual conditions more like those used by Connolly & Jones (1970) were employed. Again, intra‐modal judgements were superior to cross‐modal judgements and a cross‐modal asymmetry consistent to the kind predicted by Connolly & Jones was found. However, since uniform loss of information for both the visual and kinesthetic conditions was found the Connolly & Jones model was rejected as being unable to explain the results and instead a modality adeptness viewpoint for the response modality was suggested.