The differences and similarities in remembering visual and auditory items are carried out in two researches, “presentation modality on false memory,” and “learning to remember music”.
Although the aim of both experiments targets the mental capacity or the faculty of retaining and recalling, it is quite clear that it is challenging to determine which of these two (auditory and visual presentations) is easy to recall.
First, it is important to discuss the similarities and differences in research methods. According to the article, “presentation modality on false memory”, two experiments are carried out to give proof to the case. According to an experiment carried out by Smith and Stun, audible presentations increased true memory and decreased false memory as compared to visual presentation.
This finding contradicts Penny’s’ research results that that portrays, audible presentation reduces memory loss. It is difficult to explain why the two have different results and have opposite effect of presentation.
Maylor and Mo, having the same results as Penny, proposed that the difference in the results was caused by the method research carried. Their use of within subject-design may have caused the difference. In the first experiment, a total of 48 students from psychology classes were required.
Critical targets were arranged in the order, from the highest to lowest. They went through three blocks of five study-recall trial. In the first block, study list were presented audibly as the experimenter sat in front of the computer and read them aloud while the screen was blinded form the participants.
In the next block, participants were asked to read silently while in the last block, they were asked to read the study list aloud (Clearly and Greene, 2002).
In the second experiment, the results from the first experiment were replicated. The procedure was the same as the first experiment except that all stimuli were presented twice in a row in massed fashion. This was to ensure that that all conditions had double presentation.
54 students from psychology classes participated. The material and design were identical with the first experiment. The only difference was in the presentation of the study items. In this particular experiment they occurred twice in a raw.
The similarity in the research findings is that, the pattern of results is almost identical in both experiments. Recalling of studied items did not differ significantly between conditions while on the other hand, recognition in visual and read-aloud conditions were different.
This is because the first experiment had both significantly higher hits and false alarm rates. The second experiment had double presentations, and this allowed familiarity to reduce false alarms.
Statistically, the results of the experiments were the same. The two experiments reported that false recall is higher when presented in auditory rather than in the visual form (Korenman & Peynircioglu, 2007).
Secondly, it is important to discuss the similarities and differences in research methods and instruments used according to the article, “individual differences in learning and remembering music”. Two experiments were taken. The first one was to gauge the musicians’ and non-musicians’ learning efficiency while the second was to test the effects of their respective memories.
In both experiments, musicians and non-musicians were used for the study case. However, in both experiments, the participants were selected having passed the musical experience and music-learning-style criteria specified.
The criteria they had to pass consisted of participants being American University students, and possessing extra credit in psychology classes. Non-students participated on voluntary basis. The participants were different in both experiments.
According to the instruments used, experiments differed in terms of the number of participants used. In the first experiment, 40 participants were selected from the initial pool of 46 people. In the second experiment, 44 adults were selected from a pool of 67.
The first experiment had melody length test while the second, the length was no longer a variable. Presentation was done through a 15 inch computer monitor in experiment 1 while in the other experiment presentation was done through a laptop and projected into a television monitor.
In the second experiment, participants were given paper sheets to circle the right answers whereas in the first experiment, the melodies were played using piano-setting and saved in wave format. Both experiments used PowerPoint presentations.
The first experiment differed from the second experiment in terms of the number of sentences used. 16 unfamiliar sentences were used in experiment 1 while in the other experiment 12 sentences were used and an additional 24 included.
In conclusion, auditory versus visual presentation in learning how to remember music presentation failed to show any meaningful difference but learning style preference did. Auditory learners comprehended audible items faster and remembered them better than visual learners (Bredart, 2000).
The vice versa applies too. Meaningful sentences were learned faster and remembered than less meaningful sentences. Different learning styles in music can affect the learning rate.
An example is the Suzuki method focusing on ear training and performance skills, whereas the alternative and more commonly used method focuses on music reading activities. According to memory loss false and recognition are higher following auditory study than visual study.
References
Bredart, S. (2000). When false memories do not occur: Nor thinking of the lure or remembering that it was not heard? Memory, 8, 123-128.
Clearly, A., Greene, R. (2002). Paradoxical effects of presentation modality on false memory. MEMORY, 10 (1), 55-61.
Korenman, L.M., & Peynircioglu, Z. F. (2007). Individual Differences in Learning and Remembering Music: Auditory versus Visual Representation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55 (1), 48-64.