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.