» Articles » PMID: 29916114

Would Disfluency by Any Other Name Still Be Disfluent? Examining the Disfluency Effect with Cursive Handwriting

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2018 Jun 20
PMID 29916114
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When exposed to words presented under perceptually disfluent conditions (e.g., words written in Haettenschweiler font), participants have difficulty initially recognizing the words. Those same words, though, may be better remembered later than words presented in standard type font. This counterintuitive finding is referred to as the disfluency effect. Evidence for this disfluency effect, however, has been mixed, suggesting possible moderating factors. Using a recognition memory task, level of disfluency was examined as a moderating factor across three experiments using a novel cursive manipulation that varied on degree of legibility (easy-to-read cursive vs. hard-to-read cursive). In addition, list type and retention interval between study and test were manipulated. Across all three experiments, cursive words engendered better memory than type-print words. This memory effect persisted across varied list designs (blocked vs. mixed) and a longer (24-hour) retention interval. A small-scale meta-analysis across the three experiments suggested that the cursive disfluency effect is moderated by level of disfluency: easy-to-read cursive words tended to be better remembered than hard-to-read cursive words. Taken together, these results challenge extant accounts of the disfluency effect. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Citing Articles

Distinctive Sans Forgetica font does not benefit memory accuracy in the DRM paradigm.

Huff M, Maxwell N, Mitchell A Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):102.

PMID: 36484976 PMC: 9733772. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00448-9.


Recognition of Studied Words in Perceptual Disfluent Sans Forgetica Font.

Cui L, Liu J Vision (Basel). 2022; 6(3).

PMID: 36136745 PMC: 9501108. DOI: 10.3390/vision6030052.


Association and dissociation between judgments of learning and memory: A Meta-analysis of the font size effect.

Chang M, Brainerd C Metacogn Learn. 2022; 17(2):443-476.

PMID: 35250403 PMC: 8883023. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-021-09287-3.


Audiovisual quality impacts assessments of job candidates in video interviews: Evidence for an AV quality bias.

Fiechter J, Fealing C, Gerrard R, Kornell N Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2018; 3(1):47.

PMID: 30536156 PMC: 6286295. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-018-0139-y.

References
1.
Perea M, Gil-Lopez C, Belendez V, Carreiras M . Do handwritten words magnify lexical effects in visual word recognition?. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2015; 69(8):1631-47. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1091016. View

2.
Evans J, Stanovich K . Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 8(3):223-41. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460685. View

3.
Barnhart A, Goldinger S . Interpreting chicken-scratch: lexical access for handwritten words. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010; 36(4):906-23. PMC: 4241396. DOI: 10.1037/a0019258. View

4.
Rosner T, Davis H, Milliken B . Perceptual blurring and recognition memory: A desirable difficulty effect revealed. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015; 160:11-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.06.006. View

5.
Balota D, Yap M, Cortese M, Hutchison K, Kessler B, Loftis B . The English Lexicon Project. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(3):445-59. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193014. View