UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Imagery as a mnemonic device in the flotation method of the restricted environmental stimulation technique… Eichhorn, David 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1996-0465.pdf [ 2.04MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087669.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087669-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087669-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087669-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087669-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087669-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087669-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

I M A G E R Y AS A M N E M O N I C DEVICE IN THE F L O T A T I O N M E T H O D OF T H E R E S T R I C T E D E N V I R O N M E N T A L S T I M U L A T I O N T E C H N I Q U E (REST)  by DAVID  EICHHORN  B . A . , T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e , 1991  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THEDEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The D e p a r t m e n t of P s y c h o l o g y  W e accept this thesis as c o n f o r m i n g toffle r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A A u g u s t 1996  R u n n i n g head:  ©  I M A G E R Y M N E M O N I C S I N REST  D a v i d E i c h h o r n , 1996  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements  for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by his or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2788)  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST ii ABSTRACT This paper describes an attempt to experimentally combine the theories and methods behind research into imagery and cognition w i t h those associated w i t h the Restricted Environmental Stimulation Technique (REST). The review of the literature focuses u p o n changes in imaginal activity attributable to (or easily influenced by) changes in an individual's state of m i n d (broadly defined) and aspects of the effects of REST, flotation REST in particular, that may contribute to any such state. The choice of changes in memory performance as the dependent measure in the current study is discussed in terms of the broad research base covering the effects of imaginal activity u p o n memory, and frequent references in the REST literature to both imaginal activity and memory. The reconciliation between the hypothesis that flotation REST w o u l d facilitate the beneficial effects of imagery instructions and stimulus attributes u p o n memory and the failure to support that hypothesis proceeds along two courses. First, the logical approach accepts the statistical evidence as an indication of the limitations to the beneficial effects of flotation REST. The second approach considers the possible role of the curvilinear nature of REST effects and other explanatory concepts w h i c h may aid future studies that may yet tap the elusive potential of this environment.  Imagery Mnemonics in REST iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  ii  List of Tables List of Figures  iv .  Introduction  v  1  The Cognitive Effects of Environmental Manipulation Imagery and M e m o r y Stimulating Imagery Individual Differences Method  2 4 5 7 8  Subjects Materials Flotation Tank W o r d List Imagery Habits Questionnaire Design and Procedure Results  8 8 8 9 10 10 12  Material Norms Imageability Fragments Memory Additional Analyses Discussion  12 12 13 14 18 19  Imagery and M e m o r y In Flotation REST? The Pessimistic Approach The Optimistic Approach References  19 21 21 22 26  Appendix A  Post-Experimental Questionnaire  31  Appendix B  Imagery Habits Questionnaire  33  Appendix C  Imagery Instructions  Appendix D  Sentence Building Instructions  •• 36 37  Imagery M n e m o n i c s i n REST iv LIST O F T A B L E S  Table 1. Stimulus words by Imageability  9  Imagery Mnemonics in REST v LIST O F F I G U R E S  Figure 1. Recall performance by stimulus Imageability  14  Figure 2. Recall performance by Environment  15  Figure 3. Recall by levels of stimulus Imageability and Instructions  16  Figure 4. Fragment Completion N o r m s and Experimental results  17  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 1  Imagery as a Mnemonic Device in the Flotation Method of the Restricted Environmental Stimulation Technique (REST) INTRODUCTION U s i n g increasingly sophisticated, converging techniques and complex designs, psychologists have begun to disentangle a large number of complex h u m a n behaviours and cognitive functions that were once considered outside the realm of careful scientific scrutiny. The study of imagery and its influence u p o n cognition is a good example of an area in w h i c h cognitive science has made enormous explanatory progress in recent decades. The Restricted Environmental Stimulation Technique (REST) is a good example of a research area where the effects are difficult to quantify and continue to defy prediction. The current study was an attempt to use the newly legitimized topic, imagery, and its methodology, to shed some light u p o n REST, a topic w h i c h continues to receive only limited acceptance and appreciation in the larger scientific community. This status may not be so surprising when one considers the results of the current study which, as w i t h most REST research results, raise many more questions than they answer. The intent of this study was to integrate theories of imagery and memory w i t h those pertaining to REST. M o r e specifically, past findings of improved memory i n the chamber method (Grissom, 1966; Grissom, Suedfeld, & Vernon, 1962; L a h d o n & Suedfeld, 1972; Suedfeld, 1968, 1969; Suedfeld, Ballard, Baker-Brown, & Borrie, 1985-86; Suedfeld & L a n d o n , 1970) and i n the flotation method of REST (Eichhorn & Suedfeld, 1995; Taylor, 1985) were to be re-cast i n the light of possible increases in the prevalence and vividness of imagery. These former studies d i d not directly examine the role of imagery in memory performance. In the current study, flotation REST, due to its particularly frequent association w i t h imagery, was postulated to have an especially strong effect upon imagery, and consequently memory, over and above levels obtained after brief periods of chamber REST or full stimulation outside the laboratory.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 2  The Cognitive Effects of Environmental Manipulation There are two major REST techniques, chamber and flotation.  Both  techniques eliminate exogenous visual stimuli and drastically reduce auditory and other environmental stimuli, conditions k n o w n to promote imaginal activity (Horowitz, 1970; Reed, 1979; Singer, 1978). In addition, flotation REST substantially decreases tactual and kinesthetic stimulation (e.g., by reducing the demand u p o n the body's counter-gravity efforts; see L i l l y , 1977, pp. 38-39), generally producing pronounced effects u p o n arousal levels. These effects may contribute to especially profuse and v i v i d imagery, possibly through mediating conditions (e.g., by inducing hypnagogic states; "twilight" states between w a k i n g and sleeping; see Budzynski, 1976; Mavromatis, 1987). Whatever the specifics, there is general agreement that REST involves a shift of attention from external stimuli and activities to internal activities such as thought processes, memories, and images (Barabasz, 1982; Goldberger & Holt, 1961; Kubie, 1961; Kubzansky & Leiderman, 1961; L i l l y , 1977; Schultz, 1965; Suedfeld, 1980; Suedfeld et a l , 1985-86; Suedfeld, Metcalfe, & Bluck, 1987). In effect, "the reduction of sensory input appears to facilitate access to unconscious material" (Kubzansky & Leiderman, 1961, p. 231) by reducing the activity of competing processes. Thus, a subject who is presented stimuli in the chamber or flotation tank may experience more imagery in association w i t h those stimuli than a subject i n a more stimulus-loaded environment. This study is the second in a series of experiments intended to clarify the potential of REST as an important tool in the study of cognitive processes. The results of the first experiment in this series (Eichhorn & Suedfeld, 1995) suggest that flotation REST enhances the free recall of stimuli presented into, as opposed to outside, the environment, w i t h no differences occurring as a result of the environment experienced during the memory test. The current study follows from the conclusion i n the previous one that these encoding benefits were related to an  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 3 increased tendency on the part of floating subjects to associate the given stimuli w i t h imagery. There are various other explanations for the improvements i n memory found i n association w i t h both types of REST. Early researchers explained their results w i t h the interference theory of forgetting by suggesting that 24-hour periods of chamber REST eliminated potentially conflicting stimulation that might compete w i t h target memories for storage or processing capacity (Grissom, 1966; Grissom, Suedfeld, & Vernon, 1962). Later interpretations have included related explanations, for instance that the period of isolation is a "time to consolidate memories without the interference of other s t i m u l i " (Suedfeld, 1980, p. 39; emphasis added). These two explanations for the effects of REST u p o n memory both fit under the general category of "lack of competing stimuli", it being understood that the absence of competing stimuli makes room for increased processing capacity. Another, somewhat later, interpretation of consistent memory benefits in chamber REST suggests that the environment encourages a level of general arousal that is o p t i m u m for the performance of simple tasks such as memory (Landon & Suedfeld, 1972; Suedfeld, 1980). A similar theory in the memory literature suggests that relaxation should contribute to memory enhancement. One study of the effects of relaxation training on the memory performance of elderly subjects (Yesavage, Rose, & Spiegel, 1982) found that highly anxious subjects benefited from relaxation training. Less anxious subjects, however, actually suffered memory deficits after relaxation training. Recognizing relaxation as an insufficient explanatory construct, the authors explained the results in terms of the optimum level of arousal theory. Since the REST environment is considered to be both a relaxing and, for simple tasks, an o p t i m u m arousal inducing environment, its influence u p o n memory may be due to a general decrease in test anxiety and other physiological distractors that might interfere at any stage of the memory process.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 4 Despite the compelling nature of these theories, they do not fully reflect the potential of the REST environment, particularly the flotation tank. The theories may satisfactorily explain chamber REST results, but flotation effects have long been suspected of gaining additional advantage from pronounced imaginal processes (Horowitz, 1970; L i l l y , 1977; M c A l e n e y , Barabasz, & Barabasz, 1990; Suedfeldet al., 1985-86). That is not to say that the reduction i n competing stimulation and the level of arousal do not have their effects as well. Several studies of the effects of relaxation u p o n memory have failed, however, to find improvements i n memory unless the behavioural modification (relaxation or other reduction i n test anxiety or worry) was combined w i t h some form of cognitive modification such as study counselling or training in the use of some mnemonic device (Rankin, Gilner, Gfeller, & Katz, 1993; Spielberger, Gonzalez, & Fletcher, 1979; Yesavage, 1984; Yesavage & Jacob, 1984). G i v e n that so many of the relaxation studies used elderly populations, it is encouraging to note that the Spielberger, Gonzalez, and Fletcher article (1979) describes a series of experiments that found the same results w i t h college students. Clearly, there is much to be gained by using an imagery mnemonic regardless of the environment. If flotation REST has an enhancing effect upon imagery, then subjects given instructions to form images i n association w i t h stimuli should show increases in memory performance over subjects given verbal processing instructions. More specifically, those increases should be greater in flotation REST subjects than those found between control subjects receiving the two types of instructions if, and only if, the flotation environment is uniquely suited to the use of an imagery mnemonic.  Imagery and Memory The complex relationship between imagery and memory has been extensively researched in the last twenty years (e.g., see Logie & Denis, 1990; M c D a n i e l & Pressley, 1987; Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1980; Yuille, 1983 for reviews). "Converging operations" (Paivio, 1971, p. 9) have been used to isolate the effect of imagery  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 5 through the elimination of alternative explanations. Stimulus imageability, instructions to use imagery, and serial position have all been manipulated i n numerous studies. A n early, and still persuasive, theory devised to explain the often dramatic superiority of memory for imageable, or imaged, words posited the additive effects of representations within separate systems (i.e., the " D u a l C o d i n g " hypothesis—Paivio, 1971). Other theories describe the contribution of the "conceptual peg" role of relational and discriminatory processes (Marschark & Hunt, 1989), as w e l l as the explanatory value of such variables as vividness, concreteness, meaning, and bizarreness (a good recent review of the complex mix of variables that must be accommodated by studies of imagery and memory may be found i n Marschark & C o r n o l d i , 1990). The logic behind imagery and memory studies is very similar to that behind Berlyne's (1960) use of "collative variables" (i.e., novelty, uncertainty, conflict, and complexity) to define the factors influencing stimulus selection. Imagery and memory studies have used "complex interactions of two or more variables" (Paivio, 1971, p. 9), usually varied stimulus attributes and instruction protocols, to first isolate and then sequentially eliminate alternative explanations for their obtained memory enhancement effects. U s i n g the popular communications theory metaphor, these studies essentially have decreased the "noise" of competing variables. Very few have attempted to increase the " s i g n a l " of the stimulus trace by increasing the amplifying effect of imagery through the use of procedures or circumstances k n o w n to increase imaginal activity.  Stimulating Imagery G i v e n the wide variety of techniques and circumstances k n o w n to increase imagery (summarized in Horowitz, 1970), it is surprising to find them used so rarely in memory studies. One method, marijuana intoxication, has been used indirectly as a means of measuring state-dependent effects (Eich & Birnbaum, 1982; Eich, Weingartner, Stillman, & G i l l i n , 1975), and alcohol intoxication has been used as a means of dissociating implicit and explicit memory processes (Lister, Gorenstein,  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 6 Risher-Flowers, Weingartner, & Eckardt, 1991). There appears, however, to be only one study that has used imagery enhancement as a direct means for increasing, as opposed to isolating, the mnemonic benefits of imagery. Smith and Weene (1991) included hypnosis as a between-groups factor alongside the within-groups variable, w o r d pair imageability, and found that the usual superior recall performance for H i g h versus L o w Imagery w o r d pairs was significantly more pronounced for hypnotized subjects. To explain their results, Smith and Weene briefly discussed increased imagery as evidence for "a relative hemispheric shift or an intensification of internal processing awareness" (p. 175) occurring in hypnosis. Similarities between hypnosis and REST have been considered before, and there is evidence that REST increases subject hypnotizability (Barabasz, 1982; Wickramasekera, 1977). The invocation of hemispheric shifts to explain the effects of hypnosis i n the Smith and Weene study (1991) mirrors similar explanations given for the effects of REST (Budzynski, 1990; Reed, 1979; Suedfeld, Steel, Wallbaum, Bluck, Livesley, & Capozzi, 1994). Suedfeld et al. (1994) also cite instances i n w h i c h hemispheric shifts were used to explain meditation effects and R E M sleep, two other imagery-enhancing phenomena mentioned by H o r o w i t z (1970). Whether or not hemispheric shifts adequately account for one or more of these phenomena, it is significant that the same theory of dissociation can be applied to all of them. G i v e n the similarities between both observations and theories surrounding these various mental states, it follows that there may be some single explanatory construct capable of accounting for the similarities among them. Hypnagogia is a strong candidate for the construct in question, and may play a part in hypnosis, REST, meditation, R E M , and a host of other mental states. Some clarification and research beyond the current study, however, w i l l be needed to explore this issue. It must suffice for now to explore the imagery-enhancing effect of REST and the subsequent effect u p o n memory, saving further examination of the mediating  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 7 factors for later studies. Whatever the mediating variable, it is clear that a technique k n o w n to increase imagery should reveal its influence through an improvement in memory. U s i n g Paivio's (1971) logic, if an individual processes a given stimulus w i t h both verbal and imaginal processes, the measurable impression left on the m i n d should be at least additively higher than if only one process had been used. Extending the hypothesis, if flotation REST has a particularly strong effect upon imagery (in terms of both quality and quantity), then stimuli presented in the REST tank should be more memorable than those presented in a similarly stimulus-free, but non-floating, environment, the chamber. Thus, while recall and recognition scores were expected to be higher for words presented after one hour i n a darkened REST chamber than for those presented under more typical conditions, the further expectation was that scores w o u l d be even higher for words presented after a one hour float session. The results were expected to be different for w o r d fragment completion scores, since an increase in imagery should not significantly affect a largely verbal task. The fragment completion test was included because verbal instructions were expected to encourage a more data-driven processing approach, w h i c h is often evidenced by higher performance on implicit memory tasks (Blaxton, 1989; Jacoby, 1983; Roediger, 1990). Thus, while recall performance was expected to be superior, across groups, for subjects instructed to form images, it was recognized that fragment completion might be superior for subjects instructed to process the words verbally.  Individual Differences G i v e n that there appear to be.individual differences i n the ability to produce v i v i d and frequent imagery (Katz, 1983; M a r k s , 1986; Paivio, 1971; Paivio & Harshman, 1983), subjects were given a questionnaire to assess their imagery habits (see M e t h o d for a description) w i t h the intention of examining potential relationships between scores on this measure and some of the other variables, particularly recall and instructions received. H i g h scores on the questionnaire were  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 8 expected to correlate w i t h higher memory performance across groups w i t h this improvement being more pronounced for those high scorers receiving specific instructions to image the stimulus words.  METHOD Subjects Subjects were recruited from Introductory Psychology courses at the University of British C o l u m b i a and received course credit for their participation. N o other incentive was offered. The subjects were screened to exclude those who had had prior experience w i t h REST, in order to reduce i n d i v i d u a l differences in expectancy and motivation. The data from one subject exhibiting obvious difficulty w i t h the English language were discarded. Other reasons for discarding subjects' data included awareness of the upcoming memory test (reported on PostExperimental Questionnaire (PEQ) question # 1; see A p p e n d i x A ) , age restrictions (apparent age less than 18 or greater than 30 years), and early departure from the environment (5 subjects total). In addition, the data from 17 subjects who were not w i l l i n g to consider participation in the flotation tank (PEQ # 7) were removed for separate analyses exploring possible differences in memory performance due to this i n d i v i d u a l difference. Except where these data are explicitly mentioned, all results pertain to data from the remaining 72 subjects, consisting of 33 males and 39 females, randomly distributed across the experimental conditions.  Materials Flotation Tank The flotation tank is an O v a brand, egg-shaped, sound- and light-attenuated, enclosed tub filled to a depth of 27.5 cm w i t h an Epsom salts saturated solution. The Epsom salts raise the density of the solution to 1.28 g / c m , enabling subjects of all 3  sizes and weights to float easily u p o n the surface in a supine position w i t h approximately 1/3 of the body and all of the face out of the solution. The solution is  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 9 o  maintained at a temperature of 34 C (skin temperature) and a p H level of 7.4. Subjects often report losing the sensation of being surrounded and supported by water. The tank is located in a room w h i c h is also sound-attenuated and lightproofed to decrease stimulation further. A l l stimuli were presented over two transducers attached to the bottom of the head of the tank in a stereoscopic orientation. Subject responses were recorded through an intercom attached to the inside of the tank. W o r d List A l l subjects were presented a set of 30 words (see Table 1) at a rate of one every 38 seconds after an hour spent i n one of the four environmental conditions. The list contained an equal number of H i g h , M e d i u m , and L o w Imagery words taken from the Paivio, Yuille, and M a d i g a n norms (1968). The words were recorded upon an audio cassette i n a semi-random order of presentation, avoiding strings of three or more consecutive words at any one level of Imageability. Table 1 lists these words along w i t h their Imageability ratings.  H i g h Imageabilitv alligator automobile girl lemon shotgun window thorn earth string coast X =  6.87 6.87 6.87 6.83 6.60 6.37 6.33 6.27 6.20 6.13 6.53  M e d i u m Imageabilitv exertion* friction retailer atmosphere pride appearance science profession law offshoot* X =  L o w Imageabilitv  4.33 4.33 4.33 4.23 4.23 4.07 4.07 3.83 3.73 3.67  chance* moment outcome advantage misconception discretion exactitude idea* allegory criterion  2.50 2.50 2.40 2.37 2.30 2.27 2.23 2.20 2.13 1.83  4.08  X =  2.27  Table 1. Stimulus Words by Imageability * words switched from or to M e d i u m or L o w Imageability in final analysis  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 10 Imagery Habits Questionnaire To measure i n d i v i d u a l differences in the tendency to use imagery, the Imagery Habits Questionnaire (IHQ) was compiled from the highest loading imagery-related items from a factor analysis (Paivio & Harshman, 1983) of Paivio's Individual Differences Questionnaire (Paivio, 1971). A n effort was made to use questions loading on the imagery factor of both the 2- and 6-factor solutions in the Paivio and Harshman (1983) analysis. Equal numbers of positively and negatively keyed items were used in order to reduce potential response bias. The questionnaire is reprinted in its entirety in A p p e n d i x B.  Design and Procedure Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four environmental conditions, hereafter referred to as Walk A w a y , Light Room, Dark R o o m , and Float. These groups comprise the four levels of the first between-subjects factor i n a 4 x 2 x 3 mixed design. In the Walk A w a y condition, subjects left the laboratory after the paper work had been completed and the instructions had been explained, and returned after an hour (stimulus presentation occurred in the same location and manner as for the Light R o o m subjects). In the Light R o o m condition, subjects sat in a comfortable chair inside a sound-reducing chamber (Industrial Acoustics M o d e l 404-A) w i t h the lights on and the door closed. They were allowed to read or study during the hour, but were required to remain in the chair. In the Dark R o o m condition, subjects sat i n the same chair i n the same chamber, w i t h the lights off. This brief period of chamber REST was not intended as an experimental group so much as a partial control for the flotation REST condition, essentially separating the effects of reduced light and sound from those of reduced tactile and kinesthetic sensations. In the Float condition, subjects floated i n the REST tank w i t h the lights off for the hour. There were 20 subjects in each of these groups.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 11 The second between-subjects factor was type of instructions, hereafter referred to as Imagery and Verbal. A l l groups were divided into those receiving instructions to process the words using imagery and those receiving instructions intended to limit the use of imagery i n favour of a more verbal approach to the words, generating sentences (see Appendices C & D). The first paragraph of the Imagery instructions is nearly identical to that of Paivio, Yuille, and M a d i g a n (1968, p. 4). A d d i t i o n a l instructions were included to encourage subjects to actually form an image for each w o r d rather than merely rating the words, and to discourage verbal labeling (cf. W e l d o n & Roediger, 1987, Exp. 2). The Verbal instructions were intended to establish the baseline recall performance of subjects in each environmental condition without explicit instructions to use imagery. It has been suggested (Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1980) that some subjects, university students in particular, may use imagery without explicit instructions to do so. Subjects in all groups received all three levels of the within factor, the three levels of Imageability for the stimulus words. A l l subjects were given a brief tour of their respective environments (Walk A w a y subjects viewed, and anticipated a session in, the float tank) prior to sitting d o w n i n the reception area of the laboratory to complete the consent form, medical screening form (Float subjects only), and the appropriate instruction page. A l l subjects were presented the w o r d list after one hour in their respective environments and were tested for recall, recognition, and fragment completion of the words u p o n emerging from that environment (all non-Float subjects stayed i n the comfortable chair for ten additional minutes after presentation of the w o r d list to match approximately the amount of time Float subjects spent in the shower). After all tests were completed, subjects were asked to complete the PostExperimental Questionnaire (Appendix A ) . This questionnaire was designed to assess the degree to w h i c h subjects anticipated the memory tests (in order to exclude the data from those for w h o m the memory tests clearly were not incidental), the  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 12 intensity and frequency of imagery use, the subjects' perceived relation between imagery and memory performance, and any special reactions to the REST environments. A s mentioned earlier, an additional question (PEQ #7) allowed the exclusion of data from subjects who do not belong to the target population of individuals w i l l i n g to try a unique and unusual procedure such as flotation REST. RESULTS Material Norms Imageability Analyses were conducted to confirm the Imageability levels of the stimulus words. Most importantly, correlations were run to establish whether the Imageability norms from Paivio, Yuille, and M a d i g a n (1968) were to be followed or if the norms established by the current subjects offer a better fit to the data. A priori, it w o u l d make sense to use the subjects' o w n ratings as the guideline, but the correlations were run to verify the assumption. Correlational analysis found that the number of images (Imagery Instructions) or sentences (Verbal Instructions) generated by subjects i n response to the stimulus words correlated more highly w i t h the imagery ratings of the 36 subjects given Imagery instructions (r^ = .811, p_ < .0001, and r^ = .376, p_ < .0001, for images and sentences generated, respectively) than w i t h the ratings from the norms (r = .684, p_ < .0001, and r = .295, p < .0001, respectively). Furthermore, the recall s  s  results correlated more highly w i t h the new ratings than w i t h the norms (L. = .656, p_ < .0005, and r^ = .541, p_ < .005, respectively). Therefore, all further analyses involving the Imageability level of the stimulus words were conducted using the adjustments suggested by the current subjects' Imageability ratings. These adjustments are noted in Table 1. Essentially, two L o w Imageability and two M e d i u m Imageability words switched places.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 13 Fragments Normative data were collected for the w o r d fragments by administering only the fragment completion test to two different psychology classes. These data represent the baseline response frequencies for the fragments. In an item analysis, no significant differences were found between the words to be p r i m e d and those 1  not to be primed. There was also no difference by level of stimulus Imageability, nor was there an interaction between the priming intentions and Imageability.  The  analysis conducted at the subject level, however, tells a different story. For this analysis, and the matching analysis discussed later in relation to the experimental results, the dependent measure is a number that represents the average difficulty of the completions made by each subject. It is merely the average completion rate of the words completed by each subject, inverted so that higher scores represent better performance. The measure can thus be interpreted as a rank percentile score. According to the analysis of the normative data, subjects exhibited a higher propensity for completing the words not intended to be primed (x = .422) than for those intended to be primed (x = .297), F ( l , 84) = 38.09, p_ < .0001. It is important to consider the difficulty level (normative completion rate) of the fragments completed by each subject when analyzing completion results. If normative completion rate is not considered, i.e., if an analysis is conducted simply using the number of completions, erroneous results may be obtained. In the current case, the mean number of completions, by subject, of words from the to-be-primed category (x = 6.953) is found to be significantly higher than the number of completions from the not-to-be-primed category (x = 5.349), F ( l , 42) = 42.168, p < .0001, a result quite opposite from what was obtained when considering completion difficulty.  The term "primed", throughout this paper, is used in the general sense of having been experienced before within the experimental session. The term is not meant to signify the function of any particular memory process, such as it does in implicit memory theory. 1  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 14 Memory From the beginning, the primary dependent measure of interest for the current study has been recall performance. Recognition and fragment completion were added to round out the data. In the first phase of analysis, three separate 4 x 2 x 3 mixed-model A N O V A ' s were conducted, one for each type of memory test. The recognition and fragment completion results were m i n i m a l at best, so the following discussion is concerned principally w i t h the recall scores.  6 -  l H  Low  Medium  High  Stimulus Imageability Figure 1. Recall performance by stimulus Imageability  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 15 A l l three main effects were found to be significant, but there were no significant interactions. (a) Figure 1 shows h o w recall performance increased along w i t h the Imageability level of the stimulus words, F(2,192) = 58.18, p < .0001. (b) Subjects receiving Imagery instructions recalled more words (x = 3.81) than subjects given Verbal instructions (x = 3.23), F ( l , 192) = 7.07, p < .01. (c) Finally, Figure 2 illustrates the significant effect of Environment, F(3,192) = 3.42, p < .05. A Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison found that Float subjects exhibited significantly lower performance than the W a l k A w a y and the Dark Room subjects, notably independent of any effects of Instructions or stimulus Imageability.  6 H  5 -A  4 -\  3  H  2 -\  1 -\  Walk Away  Light Room  Dark Room  Environment Figure 2. Recall performance by Environment  Float  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 16 The interaction between stimulus Imageability and Instructions (see Figure 3) approaches significance, F(2,192) = 2.79, .05 < p_ < .10, but even after a model reduction i n v o l v i n g the removal of the more completely non-significant interaction effects (p_ > .25) from the error term, there is still no statistically significant interaction between Imageability and Instructions, F(2, 207) = 2.85.  None of the remaining interactions were statistically significant:  Imageability  x Environment, F(6,192) = .882, p_ > .5; Instructions x Environment, F(3,192) = .768, p_ > .5; and the overall interaction, Imageability x Instructions x Environment, F(6,192) = .589, p > .7.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 17 The recognition data were analyzed using a signal detection approach (Coren, W a r d , & Enns, 1994; Hochhaus, 1972) to generate values for d' and fi, discriminative ability and response bias. Due to a rather obvious ceiling effect, potential differences in ft were not considered. There were no statistically significant differences in d' by type of Instructions, F ( l , 64) - .499, p_ > .4; Environment, F(3, 64) = .859, p_ > .4; nor by the interaction between Instructions and Environment, F(3, 64) = 2.302, p_ > .05. It did not appear useful to further divide the analysis by the Imageability level of the words.  0.6-1  a> u u a> PL4  0.5  H  I  Norms  O  Experimental  0.4  o E o  0.3  U  0.2 H I Primed  I Non-Primed  Priming Figure 4. Fragment Completion N o r m s and Experimental results  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 18 The analysis of the fragment completion scores shows significantly higher completion performance for N o n - P r i m e d (x = .425) as opposed to Primed (x = .378) fragment completions, F ( l , 132) = 8.7, p < .005. This pattern is similar to that found in the normative data, except that, according to the interaction depicted in Figure 4, the experimental subjects show a significant priming effect, F ( l , 226) = 8.90, p < ;005. Note that the performance of the experimental subjects is corrected for (i.e., does not include) completed fragments of words that were remembered during the recall test.  Additional Analyses There are numerous analyses that could be run using the responses to the Post-Experimental Questionnaire (PEQ) alone or in conjunction w i t h any of the independent a n d / o r dependent variables. Two were deemed particularly important and yielded interesting results. P E Q question #8 asked subjects to rate, on a continuous scale, the type of processing they felt they used when they were presented the stimulus w o r d list. Ranging from 0, " A l l imagery", through 3.25, "Some of each", to 6.5, " A l l verbal", this scale is a check on the Instructions manipulation. There is a significant difference in the ratings of subjects given Imagery instructions (x = 2.19) and those of subjects given Verbal instructions (x = 3.281), F ( l , 70) = 14.17, p < .0005, but it is important to note the scale positions of these means. E v e n though the mean rating made by the Imagery Instruction subjects indicates that they were indeed using imagery to process the words, the Verbal Instructions mean represents a "Some of each" rating. This matches what was expected of these subjects, since sentence construction probably relies upon imagery to some degree, but challenges the assumptions of Paivio's D u a l C o d i n g hypothesis (1971). There is one final analysis of some interest to report. P E Q #7 asks subjects whether or not they w o u l d like the opportunity to experience the flotation tank. Subjects answering " n o " were orally questioned as to whether or not they w o u l d  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 19 have participated i n the experiment if they had been assigned to the Float condition. The data from 17 subjects answering this question i n the negative were omitted from all analyses on the grounds that these subjects may differ from subjects w i l l i n g to float on some fundamental attribute that may also affect memory performance. The chances of this are probably slim, but given the scarcity of research into potential personality correlates of REST, must be regarded as greater than zero. To examine the possible differences between subjects w i l l i n g to float and those u n w i l l i n g , two things were done. First, the recall analyses were re-run after replacing the 17 " U n w i l l i n g " subjects who had been excluded from previous analyses. The results d i d not differ in any significant fashion from those reported here. Significant results remained significant, and non-significant results remained non-significant. Most graphs were indistinguishable from those presented. Second, an analysis was conducted comparing mean scores on the Imagery Habits Questionnaire (IHQ) across the types of subjects, " W i l l i n g " and " U n w i l l i n g " . The W i l l i n g subjects scored significantly higher on the I H Q than U n w i l l i n g subjects (x = 4.06 & 3.86, respectively), F ( l , 87) = 4.27, p < .05. There were no similar differences found across any variables w i t h i n either of the groups. G i v e n the incredibly low level of variation i n this measure, it is remarkable to have found the difference between groups. DISCUSSION Imagery and Memory Before turning to the inevitable speculation as to w h y key hypotheses were not supported, it is important not to trivialize the implications of the significant results that were found. Despite the replicative nature of the main effects for Imageability and Instructions, it is always encouraging to find that guidelines that are nearly thirty years old can be followed to obtain original materials that still uphold the original hypotheses. The current results clearly indicate that stimulus  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 20 attributes and instructions to use imagery can independently improve recall memory. M o r e interesting perhaps than the main effects of these two variables is the failure to find a significant interaction between them. Richardson (1980, pp. 94-97) addresses the complexities involved in obtaining and interpreting interactions between stimulus attributes and mnemonic instructions, pointing out that Paivio's D u a l C o d i n g Hypothesis (1971) may not always predict or explain the results. H a d the trend i n the current data, illustrated i n Figure 3, reached significance, the results might have nicely supported the D u a l C o d i n g Hypothesis. The inconclusiveness of that result, however, raises the question as to whether or not it is truly the Imageability of the words that is contributing to improved memory or some other, perhaps correlated, attribute such as concreteness, frequency, or meaningfulness. The analysis comparing the influence of the Instructions given to subjects w i t h their self-rated type of processing (PEQ #8) raises more questions regarding the D u a l C o d i n g issue. A l t h o u g h that analysis suggests that subjects given Imagery Instructions were indeed using imagery to process the words presented to them, it also suggests that the subjects given Verbal Instructions were actually using both imaginal and verbal processing. According to the "coding redundancy" hypothesis, central to D u a l C o d i n g theory (Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1980), this use of both imagery and verbal processing should have combined additively to result in superior memory performance, but it did not. Paivio may be right that imagery enhances memory, but for the w r o n g reasons. Instead of imagery facilitating verbal processing, verbal processing may interfere w i t h imagery, a potentially subtractive effect. Conclusions along these lines cannot be based, however, u p o n a single post hoc analysis of a single self-rating. To properly address this issue, further studies and theories must address the question as to what type of processing is considered more basic to the human m i n d . Paivio (1971) considers verbal processing to have  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 21 developed into an independent function, but there may still be important connections between verbal and imaginal processing.  In Flotation REST? A l t h o u g h the primary hypothesis of the current study was not upheld and other anticipated interactions d i d not occur, there is still a lot of valuable knowledge to be gleaned from the results. There are two approaches to the findings from this study: pessimistic and optimistic. A s w i t h most psychological findings, reality most likely lies somewhere between the two. The Pessimistic A p p r o a c h By a strict, unassuming interpretation of these results, and i n accordance w i t h all a priori hypotheses, the lack of any interaction between the variable Environment and any of the imagery-related independent variables makes a strong case against the mediating role of imagery i n any effects REST may have upon memory. A d d to this the near-identical recall performance across environments, except the Float condition, i n w h i c h recall performance suffered significantly, and past findings of improved memory in flotation REST (Eichhorn & Suedfeld, 1995; Taylor, 1985) are cast in a more dubious light. A s if this were not enough to discourage the most optimistic of researchers, the beautiful results, cleanly in line w i t h the hypothesized relationship between imagery and memory, are like a slap in the face. If the Imageability and Instructions main effects had evaporated as well, then speculation could grow from claims of procedural or material flaws. But the results plainly show that the materials and procedures functioned as intended. G i v e n little room for equivocation, the interpretation of the results must proceed in terms of the limitations of flotation REST. Most accounts of imagery enhancement i n both types of REST have been in the form of anecdotal reports (Lilly, 1977), intuitions (McAleney, Barabasz, & Barabasz, 1990; Suedfeld et a l , 198586), and references to states of m i n d that are assumed to be similar to those  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 22 supposedly induced by REST (Barabasz, 1982; Horowitz, 1970; Reed, 1979). There has been little systematic investigation into the prevalence of imagery in REST that might counter the necessary conclusion from the current study that REST does not affect the relationship between imagery and memory performance. Past findings of improved memory i n REST must be explained w i t h some other mediating factor. Or perhaps, as the main effect for Environment in the current study suggests, the flotation method is simply not as beneficial for memory as the earlier studies made it appear. A l t h o u g h the lower recall performance on the part of floating subjects supports a pessimistic view of the beneficial effects REST may have u p o n memory, it also figures prominently i n the optimistic view. The Optimistic A p p r o a c h If the current study had shown absolutely no effect of Environment upon recall performance, if Figure 2 had simply illustrated a straight line function, then there w o u l d certainly be no cause for speculation. But the significant difference in recall performance, even i n a negative direction, demands explanation; and, in the end, that no doubt w i l l require further research. One good explanatory possibility was anticipated, in the Introduction, as part of the review of the literature regarding relaxation and memory. If imagery is not functioning to improve memory i n REST, perhaps relaxation is responsible. If REST only improves memory indirectly by reducing performance anxiety, then the point made by Yesavage, Rose, and Spiegel (1982) may explain the current results. That is, subjects in the current study may not have been motivated to the point where they felt any pressure to remember the stimulus words and thus may have fallen into the lower half of the arousal/performance curve, w i t h memory suffering as a result. Some subjects i n the Float condition did report being too relaxed to remember the words. Perhaps in the future, intentional memory should be  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 23 measured alongside incidental memory so that subjects may be more motivated to perform well. The interactive effects of incentive and / o r anxiety could be added to examine the possibility that REST only functions as a tool for reducing forgetting, not improving storage (cf. Suedfeld, Ramirez, Remick, & Fleming, 1987, regarding the role of chamber REST i n the reduction of memory loss as opposed to the increase of memory gain). Similarly, future research must compare short- and long-term memory.  In  one of the few previous studies to research memory i n the flotation version of REST (Eichhorn & Suedfeld, 1995), higher incidental memory performance was found for Float as compared to control subjects 24 hours after the presentation of the stimuli. The current results were obtained an average of 10 minutes after presentation of the stimuli, suggesting that short-term memory may be aided less by flotation REST than long-term memory. This argument is supported by Grissom's (1966) finding that, in chamber REST, memory improved as the time spent in REST increased. In the current study, many subjects, during the recall test, reported feeling that they w o u l d remember more words later on i n the day. Finally, in a last attempt to argue for the possible role of imagery, it is possible that only meaningful imagery w i l l contribute to memory enhancement effects i n REST. For example, Richardson (1980, pp. 73-74) discusses the importance of using interactive, as opposed to separative, imagery in attempts to improve memory performance through instruction sets. Anecdotal evidence for the importance of meaningful (as w e l l as bizarre) stimuli comes again from the Eichhorn and Suedfeld (1995) study, i n w h i c h subjects recalled the stimulus set "naked-bare" much more regularly than any other stimulus set, most likely due to the humourous images resulting from the misinterpretation of "bare" as "bear". Related to meaningfulness, the personal relevance of a stimulus, or the degree to w h i c h a subject is able to involve h i m or herself w i t h it, whether through autobiographical associations or interactive imagery, may be another factor  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST  24 contributing to memory effects in REST. In the Taylor (1985) study, floating subjects were significantly better than control subjects at learning material from a chemistry class. This material carried personal relevance as an important part of each subjects' ongoing education, and as such may have encouraged high levels of personal involvement w i t h the material. Personal involvement may benefit learning by stimulating a greater number of connections w i t h existing long-term memories. It may be that flotation facilitates those connections. Possessing the conviction that overwhelming anecdotal evidence cannot be entirely wrong, I must conclude that the potential benefits of using imagery as a mnemonic device i n association w i t h flotation REST cannot be summarily dismissed on the basis of the current results. There is still too little k n o w n about REST to begin eliminating possible explanatory constructs. Even if there turns out to be no direct association between the two, the study of REST has much to learn from the study of imagery and memory. Both are highly complex and convoluted areas of study, but the latter has been successful at systematically narrowing the explanatory possibilities, whereas the former has continued to flounder.  Future  REST research must not be diverted from more complex designs simply because the requisite sample size and the consequent time demands appear daunting. The effects of REST are complex and research into them must be accordingly complex i n order to discover and resolve the multiple interactions that must be operating to generate the varied and often contradictory results obtained so far. A description of a potential next step in the current research project w i l l serve to illustrate the level of complexity that must be incorporated into future cognitively-oriented REST research: One important factor i n flotation REST studies is the apparent difference between first and subsequent floats. In both previous studies finding greater memory in flotation REST (Eichhorn & Suedfeld, 1995; Taylor, 1985), subjects received at least one preliminary float in order to familiarize them w i t h the  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 25 environment. It has been suggested (McAleney, Barabasz, & Barabasz, 1990), and widely accepted, that first floats typically involve a higher level of arousal and other unpredictable effects, largely resulting from the subject's need to acclimatize to the novelty of the situation. The lack of a preliminary float i n the current study may have contributed to the lower performance of subjects i n the Float condition. To explore this possibility, at least 20 more subjects w o u l d need to be run, w i t h extra time for initial floats, to cover both the Imagery and Verbal Instructions conditions of this new Float group. To control for possible advantages due simply to visiting the lab for an extra day, 20 subjects w o u l d have be run i n at least one comparison condition. The numbers and complexities quickly multiply as the importance of other variables are considered. 20 more subjects w o u l d be needed to consider the role of intentional rehearsal i n just one environment, 20 more for each additional environment, and the numbers must double in order to add any other independent variables, such as i n d i v i d u a l differences. The use of multiple-experiment research programs and converging operations reduces the need for outrageously complex research designs, in REST research just as i n other areas. The current study has demonstrated, however, that a number of factors can be incorporated into a meaningful and powerful research design that does not have to be excessively a w k w a r d or time-consuming. The use of such designs must continue if REST researchers w i s h to apply the technique to topics as broad and complex as memory, problem solving, and creativity.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 26 REFERENCES Barabasz, A . F. (1982). Restricted environmental stimulation and the enhancement of hypnotizability: Pain, E E G alpha, skin conductance and temperature responses. International Journal of C l i n i c a l and Experimental Hypnosis, 30,147166. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. N e w York: M c G r a w - H i l l . Blaxton, T. A . (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, M e m o r y , and Cognition, 15, 657-668. Budzynski, T. H . (1976). Biofeedback and twilight states of consciousness. In G . E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances i n Research. N e w York: Plenum, vol. 1, 361-385. Budzynski, T. H . (1990). Hemispheric Asymmetry and REST. In P. Suedfeld, J. W . Turner, Jr., and T. H . Fine (Eds.), Restricted Environmental Stimulation: Theoretical and Empirical Developments in Flotation REST, (pp. 76-85). Toledo: Medical College of Ohio. Coren, S., W a r d , L. M . , & Enns, J. T. (1994). Sensation and perception. 4th E d . Orlando: Harcourt Brace. Eich, E., & Birnbaum, I. M . (1982). Repetition, cuing, and state-dependent memory. M e m o r y & Cognition. 10,103-114. Eich, J. E., Weingartner, H . , Stillman, R. C., & G i l l i n , J. C. (1975). State-dependent accessibility of retrieval cues i n the retention of a categorized list. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14,408-417. Eichhorn, D. P., & Suedfeld, P. (1995). M e m o r y and mood in flotation REST. Poster presented at the A n n u a l Meeting of the Society for Brain, Behavior, and Cognitive Science. Goldberger, L., & Holt, R. R. (1961). Experimental interference w i t h reality contact: Individual differences. In P. Solomon, P. E. Kubzansky, P. H . Leiderman, J. H . Mendelson, R. Trumbull, & D. Wexler (Eds.), Sensory deprivation (pp. 130-142). Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Grissom, R. J. (1966). Facilitation of memory by experiential restriction after learning. A m e r i c a n Journal of Psychology, 79, 613-617. Grissom, R. J., Suedfeld, P., & Vernon, J. (1962). M e m o r y for verbal material: Effects of sensory deprivation. Science, 138,429-430.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 27 Hochhaus, L. (1972). A table for the calculation of d' and f5. Psychological Bulletin, 77,375-376. Horowitz, M . J. (1970). Imagery formation and cognition. N e w York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Remembering the data: A n a l y z i n g interactive processes i n reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 485-508. Katz, A . N . (1983). What does it mean to be a high imager? In J. C . Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, M e m o r y , and Cognition: Essays i n H o n o r of A l l a n Paivio. (pp. 39-63) Hillsdale, N J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kubie, L. S. (1961). Theoretical aspects of sensory deprivation. In P. Solomon, P. E. Kubzansky, P. H . Leiderman, J. H . Mendelson, R. Trumbull, & D. Wexler (Eds.), Sensory deprivation (pp. 213-228). Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Kubzansky, P. E., & Leiderman, P. H . (1961). Sensory deprivation: A n overview. In P. Solomon, P. E. Kubzansky, P. H . Leiderman, J. H . Mendelson, R. Trumbull, & D. Wexler (Eds.), Sensory deprivation (pp. 229-235). Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Landon, P. B., & Suedfeld, P. (1972). Complex cognitive performance and sensory deprivation: Completing the U-curve. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 601-602. Lilly, J. C. (1977). The deep self. N e w York: Simon and Schuster. Lister, R. G . , Gorenstein, C., Risher-Flowers, D., Weingartner, H . J., & Eckardt, M . J. (1991). Dissociation of the acute effects of alcohol on implicit and explicit memory processes. Neuropsychologia, 29,1205-1212. Logie, R. H . , & Denis, M . (1990). Mental images in human cognition. Elsevier.  Amsterdam:  Marks, D. F. (Ed.) (1986). Theories of image formation. N e w York: Brandon House. Marschark, M . , & Cornoldi, C. (1990). Imagery and verbal memory. In C. Cornoldi & M . A . M c D a n i e l (Eds.), Imagery and cognition (pp. 133-182). N e w York: Springer-Verlag. Marschark, M . , & Hunt, R. R. (1989). A reexamination of the role of imagery in learning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 15, 710-720. Mavromatis, A . (1987). Hypnagogia: The unique state between wakefulness and sleep. N e w York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 28 McAleney, P. J., Barabasz, A . , & Barabasz, M . (1990). Effects of flotation restricted environmental stimulation on intercollegiate tennis performance. Perceptual and M o t o r Skills. Z l , 1023-1028. McDaniel, M . A . , & Pressley, M . (Eds.).(1987). Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications. N e w York: Springer-Verlag. Paivio, A . (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. N e w York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Paivio, A . , & Harshman, R. (1983). Factor analysis of a questionnaire on imagery and verbal habits and skills. Canadian Tournal of Psychology, 37. 461-483. Paivio, A . , Yuille, J. C , & M a d i g a n , S. A . (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Tournal of Experimental Psychology M o n o g r a p h s . 76.(1, pt. 2), 1-25. Rankin, E. J., Gilner, F. H . , Gfeller, J. D., & Katz, B. M . (1993). Efficacy of progressive muscle relaxation for reducing state anxiety among elderly adults on memory tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 77.1395-1402. Reed, G . F. (1979). Sensory deprivation. In G . U n d e r w o o d & R. Stevens (Eds.), Aspects of consciousness: V o l . 1., Psychological issues (pp. 155-178). London: Academic Press. Richardson, J. T. E. (1980). Mental imagery and h u m a n memory. London: M a c m i l l a n Press. Roediger, H . L., Ill (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. A m e r i c a n Psychologist, 45,1043-1056. Schultz, D. P. (1965). Sensory restriction: Effects on behavior. N e w York: Academic Press. Singer, J. L. (1978). Experimental studies of daydreaming and the stream of thought. In K. S. Pope, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), The stream of consciousness: Scientific investigations into the flow of human experience (pp. 187-223). N e w York: P l e n u m Press. Smith, R. T., & Weene, K. A . (1991). the effects of hypnosis on recall of high and low imagery paired-associated words. Tournal of Mental Imagery, 15,171-176. Spielberger, C . D., Gonzalez, H . P., & Fletcher, T. (1979). Test anxiety reduction, learning strategies, and academic performance. In H . F. O ' N e i l , Jr., & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies. N e w York: Academic Press.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 29  Suedfeld, P. (1968). The cognitive effects of sensory deprivation: The role of task complexity. Canadian Tournal of Psychology, 22, 302-307. Suedfeld, P. (1969). Changes in intellectual performance and i n susceptibility to influence. In J. P. Zubek (Ed.), Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research (pp. 126-166). N e w York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Suedfeld, P. (1980). Restricted environmental stimulation: applications. N e w York: Wiley.  Research and clinical  Suedfeld, P., Ballard, E. J., Baker-Brown, G., & Borrie, R. A . (1985-86). F l o w of consciousness i n restricted environmental stimulation. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 5, 219-230. Suedfeld, P., & Landon, P. B. (1970). Motivational arousal and task complexity: Support for a model of cognitive changes in sensory deprivation. Tournal of Experimental Psychology. 83 _329-330. /  Suedfeld, P., Metcalfe, J., & Bluck, S. (1987). Enhancement of scientific creativity by flotation REST (Restricted Environmental Stimulation Technique). Tournal of Environmental Psychology, 7, 219-231. Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C . E., Remick, R. A . , & Fleming, J. A . E. (1987). M e m o r y effects of Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy (REST) and possible applications to E C T . Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry. 11,179-184. Suedfeld, P., Steel, G . D., Wallbaum, A . B. C , Bluck, S., Livesley, N . , & Capozzi, L. (1994). Explaining the effects of stimulus restriction: Testing the dynamic hemispheric asymmetry hypothesis. Tournal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 87-100. Taylor, T. (1985). The effects of flotation restricted environmental stimulation therapy on learning: Subjective evaluation and E E G measurements. In T. H . Fine and J. W . Turner, Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on REST and Self-Regulation (pp. 76-85). Toledo: Medical College of Ohio. Weldon, M . S., & Roediger, H . L., Ill (1987). Altering retrieval demands reverses the picture superiority effect. M e m o r y & Cognition, 15, 269-280. Wickramasekera, I. E. (1977). O n attempts to modify hypnotic susceptibility: Some psychophysiological procedures and promising directions. Annals of the N e w York A c a d e m y of Sciences, 296.143-153.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 30 Yesavage, J. A . (1984). Relaxation and memory training in 39 elderly patients. American Tournal of Psychiatry, 141, 778-781. Yesavage, J. A . , Rose, T. L., & Spiegel, D. (1982). Relaxation training and memory improvement i n elderly normals: Correlation of anxiety ratings and recall improvement. Experimental A g i n g Research, 8,195-198. Yesavage, J. A . , & Jacob, R. (1984). Effects of relaxation and mnemonics on memory, attention and anxiety in the elderly. Experimental A g i n g Research, 10, 211-214. Yuille, J. C. (Ed.). (1983). Imagery, memory, and cognition: Essays i n honor of A l l a n P a i v i o . Hillsdale, N J : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 31 APPENDIX A  Post-Experimental Questionnaire 1.  Were y o u aware that you w o u l d be tested for memory at any time before the announcement of the first memory test? (Circle a number) N o t at all 0  1  2  Somewhat 3  4  5  Very much 6  2.  If so, d i d y o u take any special measures to memorize the words presented to you? What were they?  3.  D i d y o u experience a lot of imagery in relation to the words y o u were presented i n the first part of the experiment? N o t at all 0  4.  2  4  5  Very much 6  O n average, was the imagery you experienced intense, dramatic, or vivid? N o t at all 0  5.  1  Somewhat 3  1  2  Somewhat 3  4  5  Very much 6  To what degree do y o u feel the special processing of the words (forming sentences or images) aided your later memory for them? Not at all 0  1  2  Somewhat 3  4  5  Very much 6  6.  If y o u participated in the flotation tank, were there any special experiences or sensations y o u w o u l d like to report?  7.  If y o u d i d not participate in the flotation tank, w o u l d y o u like the opportunity to do so i n the future? • Yes  •  No  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 32  8.  All Visual  To the best of your knowledge, when y o u were thinking about the words presented to y o u , were y o u thinking w i t h pictures (visualizing) or thinking i n words (verbalizing)? Perhaps some of each? Place a mark on the line below to indicate the amount of each type of thinking y o u experienced, on average. Mostly Visual  Some of each  Mostly Verbal  Were y o u thinking i n some completely different way? • Feel free to elaborate  Yes  All Verbal  •  No  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 33  Imagery  APPENDIX B Habits Questionnaire  The statements on the following pages represent ways of thinking, studying and problem solving, which are used by some people and not by others. Read each statement and decide whether or not, and to what degree, it is true with respect to yourself. Then indicate your answer in one of the boxes provided. If you agree with the statement or decide that it describes you, answer "Agree" or "Strongly Agree". If you disagree with the statement or feel that it does not describe you, answer "Strongly Disagree" or "Disagree". Mark "Unsure" only if it is truly impossible to categorize yourself with regard to a given statement. Answer the statements as carefully and honestly as you can. The statements are not designed to assess the goodness or badness of the way you think. They are attempts to discover the methods of thinking you consistenely use in various situations. There are no right or wrong answers. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.  1.  Listening to someone recount his experiences does not usually arouse mental pictures of the incidents being described. Strongly Disagree  •  2.  •  •  Agree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  •  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  •  •  I do not have a vivid imagination. Strongly Disagree  • 4.  •  Unsure  I often use mental pictures to solve problems. Strongly Disagree  3.  Disagree  Disagree  Unsure  Agree  Strongly Agree  •  •  •  _•  Agree  Strongly Agree  I can easily picture moving objects in my mind. Strongly Disagree  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  •  .  •  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 34  5.  I have only vague visual impressions of scenes I have experienced.  Strongly Disagree  •  6.  •  •  •  •  •  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  I find it difficult to form a mental picture of anything. Strongly Disagree  •  11.  Agree  I never use mental pictures or images when trying to solve problems. Strongly Disagree  10.  •  When someone describes something that happens to him, I sometimes find myself vividly imagining the events that happened. Strongly Disagree  9.  Unsure  I can close my eyes and easily picture a scene I have experienced. Strongly Disagree  8.  •  I think that most people think in terms of mental pictures whether they are completely aware of it or not. Strongly Disagree  7.  Disagree  Strongly Agree  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  My thinking often consists of mental pictures or images. Strongly Disagree  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 35  12.  I do not form a mental picture of people or places when reading of them. Strongly Disagree  •  13.  •  •  •  Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  •  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  .  •  •  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  I often use mental images or pictures to help me remember things. Strongly Disagree  •  16.  Unsure  I often enjoy the use of mental pictures to reminisce. Strongly Disagree  15.  •  My daydreams are rather indistinct and hazy. Strongly Disagree  14.  Disagree  Strongly Agree  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  When remembering a scene, I use verbal descriptions rather than mental pictures. Strongly Disagree  •  Disagree  •  Unsure  •  Agree  •  Strongly Agree  •  Imagery Mnemonics i n REST 36 APPENDIX C Imagery  Instructions  Nouns differ in their capacity to arouse mental images of things or events. Some words arouse a sensory experience, such as a mental picture or sound, very quickly and easily, whereas others may do so only with difficulty (i.e., after a long delay) or not at all. The first task in this experiment is to rate a list of words as to the ease or difficulty with which they arouse mental images. Any word which, in your estimation, arouses a mental image (i.e., a mental picture, or sound, or other sensory experience) very quickly and easily should be given a high imagery rating; any word that arouses a mental image with difficulty or not at all should be given a low imagery rating. Think of the words "apple" or "fact". "Apple" would probably arouse an image relatively easily and would be rated as high imagery; "fact" would probably do so with difficulty and would be rated as low imagery. Your ratings will be made on a seven-point scale, where one is the low imagery end of the scale and seven is the high imagery end of the scale. Your second rating will consist of counting the number of distinct details you perceive i n relation to a given word during a period of approximately 30 seconds. A tone will indicate when there are 8 seconds left for you to report this number before the next word is presented. During the period of silence, try to form as vivid an image as possible of whatever is represented by the given word. The type of details you should count include not only object attributes, but qualities such as the different senses involved and any emotional responses or memories associated with the image. For example, "apple" sensations might include the object attributes of colour, shape, texture, taste, and memory associations with apple pie, school teachers, and supermarkets for a total count of 7 details. Below are some typical words. For practice, rate them on the scale provided by circling the chosen number. During the actual exercise, you will be rating the words orally. POSTER Low Imagery 1  Medium Imagery 4  High Imagery 7  # of Details  GREED Low Imagery 1  Medium Imagery 4  High Imagery 7  # of Details  TICKET Low Imagery 1  Medium Imagery 4  High Imagery 7  # of Details  TENDENCY Low Imagery 1 2  Medium Imagery 4  High Imagery 7  # of Details  Imagery M n e m o n i c s i n REST 37  APPENDIX D Sentence  Building  Instructions  Words differ in their ability to convey meaning. Some words express a great deal of information and can be used in a variety of ways, whereas others are more specific and often less flexible. The broad meaningfulness of a word can often be determined by the variety of sentences individuals can generate using that word as a cue. The first task of this study follows from this premise. For this task, a list of words will be presented to you by audio tape and you will be given time to mentally count the number of sentences you can generate in response to those words. You are allowed to change the presented words slightly. For example, you may change a singular word, such as "apple", to a plural word such as "apples". Each word will be followed by 3 0 seconds of silence, which will be followed by a brief tone, after which you are to announce the number of sentences you were able to generate. The tone indicates that there are approximately 8 seconds left for you to make your response before the next word is presented. You do not need to say the sentences out loud, simply keep a running count and announce the total soon after the 8 second warning. Below are some typical words. For practice, give yourself approximately 30 seconds per word and count the number of sentences you can think of. During the actual exercise, you will be announcing the number of sentences orally.  POSTER Number of sentences:  GREED Number of sentences:  TICKET Number of sentences:  TENDENCY Number of sentences:  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items