SENTENCE IMAGERY AND RECALL:

AN ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHIC EVALUATION
OF HEMISPHERIC PROCESSING IN MALES AND FEMALES1

William 0. Haynes and W. H. Moore, Jr.

(Auburn University and California State University, Long Beach)

It is a clearly established notion in neurolinguistics that the right and

left cerebral hemispheres represent two discrete modes of information
processing. The right hemisphere has been shown to process information in
a holistic, nonsegmental fashion and thus primarily specializes in dealing
with visual-spatial, nonsegmental stimuli. The left hemisphere is typically
characterized as an analytic-segmental processor that specializes in dealing
with linguistic, temporal-segmental information (Segalowitz and Gruber,
1978; Hamad, Doty, Goldstein, Jaynes and Krauthamer, 1977; Whitaker
and Whitaker, 1975, 1976, 1977).
It is becoming increasingly clear that the use of the right or left hemi­
sphere in dealing with information is highly variable among subjects, tasks,
and stimuli. For instance, Gruber and Segalowitz (1978) state that a sub­
ject's "psychological set" may be an important variable in hemispheric pro­
cessing. Gates and Bradshaw (1977) show that musicians tend to process
music more left hemispherically and nonmusicians more right hemispheri­
cally. There is some evidence for a sex difference in hemispheric proces­
sing (Lake and Bryden, 1976; Moore and Haynes, 1980a; Remington, Kra­
shen and Harshman, 1973; McGlone and Davidson, 1973). Some pathologi­
cal subject groups (stutterers, aphasics) have been shown to process infor­
mation differently than normal subjects (Moore, 1976; Moore and Haynes,
1980b; Moore and Weidner, 1974). Thus, there appears to be much plasti­
city in procesing and researchers are currently attempting to define the varia­
bles which affec hemispheric activation (Moore and Haynes, 1980a, 1980b).
A stimulus variable that has been repeatedly investigated is the relative
amount of imagery associated with linguistic forms (Paivio, 1971). Paivio
has hypothesized that certain words with high imagery value may be coded
in memory differently than low imagery words. Most often, low imagery
words are more abstract and difficult to visualize while high imagery words
are concrete and easily associated with a visual icon (Paivio, Yuille and
Madigan, 1968). Paivio, Yuille and Madigan (1968, p". 2) cite many studies
Cortex (1981) 17, 49-62.
 50 W. 0. Haynes and W. H. Moore, Jr.

which support the idea that:

... concreteness has been found to correlate with performance in experiments

on free recall, recognition, memory, short term memory, paired associate
learning, associative speed, perceptual selectivity, and recognition speech, and
physiological indices of arousal.

More recent research continues to show that high imagery items are
better recalled (Jones and Spreen, 1967; Hiscock, 1976) more rapidly com­
prehended (Holmes and Langford, 1976), and better recognized (ElliE
and Shepard, 1974) than low imagery stimuli. Thus, when dealing with
linguistic stimuli, it is clear that the relative imagery value of the word is
an important variable in how subjects deal with the material.
It is intuitively appealing to hypothesize that high and low imagery
material may be dealt with differentially by the brain. More specifically,
high imagery (concrete) words may be processed to a greater extent by
the right hemisphere since this processor has a visual-spatial or iconic
orientation. Conversely, low imagery (abstract) words may have to be
verbally defined in order to store them since they do not lend themselves
to an iconic strategy. The left hemisphere, which is linguistic and seg­
mental, might be most appropriate for processing low imagery words.
Several investigations have found a relationship between hemispheric ac­
tivation and word imagery. Hines (1976) used tachistoscopic procedures
and found that familiar low imagery nouns demonstrated a significantly
greater right visual half field (RVHF) superiority as compared to high
imagery nouns. In a follow-up study, Hines (1977) again used a tachisto­
scopic technique and reported a RVHF preference for low imagery words
as compared to high imagery items. These RVHF advantages suggest left
hemispheric processing of low imagery words. Ellis and Shepard (1974)
also used tachistoscopically presented words and reported a left visual
half field advantage for high imagery as compared to low imagery items
which implies right hemispheric processing of the former .. Implementing
a dichotic listening technique, McFarland, McFarland, Brain and Ashton
(1978) found a right ear advantage (REA) for low imagery words under
conditions of competing speech stimuli. This suggests left hemispheric
processing of low imagery items. Finally, Day (1977) used a reaction time
paradigm and reported that the right hemisphere was "deficient" in pro­
cessing low imagery nouns while the left hemisphere took precedence in
recognizing these items. Thus, tachistoscopic, dichotic and reaction time
studies support the notion that there may be hemispheric specialization in
processing low and high imagery words. Some other studies, however, do
not lend support to this hypothesis. Two dichotic listening studies (Borkow­
sky, Spreen and Stutz, 1965; Jones and Spreen, 1967) did not report a
 Sentence imagery and recall 51

REA for low imagery words or a left ear advantage for high imagery items.
Further, Moore and Lorendo (1979) using an EEG alpha asymmetry pa­
radigm found no significant differences in alpha suppression on high or
low imagery single words. This suggests that there was no significant hemi­
spheric difference in the processing of these two classes of words.
In addition to stimulus characteristics, imagery has been investigated as
a process or strategy in which information is encoded for storage or later
retrieval (DiVesta, Ingersoll and Sunshine, 1971). Hiscock (1978) has sug­
gested that Paivio's (1971) Individual Differences Questionaire (IDQ),
which measures subjective reports of imagery and verbal strategies, would
be useful in investigating styles of information processing and the manner in
which people represent words. It might be hypothesized that "visualizers"
process information differently than "verbalizers" and that hemispheric pro­
cessing is related to subject's reports of imagery and verbal strategies. In­
deed, it is conceivable that visualizers, who report greater reliance on ima­
gery, tend to use more right hemispheric processing than verbalizers who are
more dependent on language symbols for information processing. While
there is considerable appeal for such a speculation, there is presently little
empirical data for its support.
In view of the conflicting reports on the relationship between hemispheric
processing and word imagery, the present study was designed to use an EEG
alpha symmetry paradigm to extend the research in this area. Several
methodogical issues have been integrated into the study which include: (1)
control for familial right handedness in the subjects; (2) construction of sen­
tence stimuli which are composed of either high or low imagery words; (3)
an evaluation of the subject's alleged "processing style" by having him/her
complete the Individual Differences Questionnaire (Hiscock, 1978); (4) a
gross evaluation of processing time for the sentences; (5) a measure of recall
of concrete and abstract words; and (6) controlling for an equal number
of males and females.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Subjects
Forty subjects were included in the experimental sample which was divided
equally between males and females. The subjects were volunteer undergraduate
students, who had not previously participated in hemispheric processing re­
search. The males had a mean age of 19.60 (range = 18.00-22.25) and the
females had a mean age of 19.73 (range = 18.17-21.92). All subjects reported
a negative history of cerebral pathology when asked if they had ever suffered
any brain damage, concussions, epilepsy or had ever been under the care of
a neurologist. All subjects were right handed and stated that they used their
right hand on 8 out of 10 activities on a modification of the Neurosensory Center
52 W. 0. Haynes and W. H. Moore, Jr.

Handedness Questionnaire (Benton, Meyers and Polder, 1962). Additionally,

the questionnaire insured familial (parents and siblings) right handedness of
all subjects.

Stimuli
Two different groups of sentences were generated with the following syntactic
structure: article + adjective + noun + verb + article + adjective + noun.
With the exception of the definite articles, lexical items were chosen from
Paivio's (1978) "Imagery and familiarity ratings for 2448 words." High imagery
sentences were constructed with words having a mean imagery value of 5.82
(range = 5.00-6.87) and low imagery sentences included words with a mean
imagery rating of 2.44 (range = 1.38-3.00). Each group of stimuli consisted
of 14 sentences. The sentences were typewritten in upper case pica type and
photographed with a 35 mm camera to produce 2 X 2 slides for presentation.

Apparatus
All electroencephalographic (EEG) data were gathered in an acoustically
isolated chamber (lAC, 1200 Series) meeting ANSI (1969) standards. To insure
a more consistent noise level in the test chamber, speech spectrum noise at an
intensity of 35 dB SPL was presented in the sound field through one speaker
(Grason-Stadler, 162). The test stimuli were amplified and presented through a
second loudspeaker at 65 dB SPL. This speaker was located to the left and
rear of each subject at a distance of 73.66 centimeters (± 2.54 em) from the
nasion and an angle of 30 degrees 42 minutes. EEG activity was recorded using
gold cup-shaped electrodes (Grass, ESG).
For each hemisphere an AC. preamplifier (Grass, 7P3) amplified the analog
EEG signal. The analog signal was interfaced with an 8-13 Hz Med Associates,
Model EEG 500, 10 pole (rolloff -30 dB/oct) filter. The filtered signal was fed
to a Grass 7P10, cumulative integrator using full rectification. Analog, filter
and integrator channels were displayed on an ink-writing oscillograph (Grass,
74C-21PA) using Grass, 7DA drivers.
Slides were projected on a Kodak Model 800H carousel slide projector
through a window into the experimental chamber. A slide advance button
was fixed to the right armrest of the subject's chair.

Procedure
All subjects were administered the Modified Individual Differences Ques­
tionnaire (Hiscock, 1978). This instrument contains 38 verbal and 34 imagery
items. The questionnaire is alleged to assess imagery and verbal processes
through Iikert scale scoring. The scaling is reversed on a number of items to
minimize the effects of agreement.
Electrodes were attached over the left and right temporo-parietal areas
using electrode cream (Grass, EC2) for monopolar recording at sites "30% of
the intermeatal perimeter down from the vertex and 10% of the nasion-inion
distance posterior from the intermeatal perimeter" (Robbins and McAdam,
1974, p. 190). A reference electrode was placed at the vertex (CZ) and a
ground electrode was located on the forehead at the midline. The impedance of
recording electrodes was monitored using a Grass Model EZM 1E electrode
impedance meter prior to data collection for each . subject and was below
 Sentence imagery and recall 53

10 kohms.
Each recording system was calibrated using an external 10.5 Hz (1.73 volt,
RMS) sine wave which is a value midway in the frequency range of our alpha
filters. The external calibration unit was custom built by our electronics techni­
cian to emit the correct calibration frequency. This signal was introduced into
the external calibration system of the preamplifier with the preamplifier
amplitude calibrator set at 50 1-tV, to attenuate the calibration signal. This
allowed adjustment of the cumulative integrator (through our preamplifier-filter
system) such that each 50 mm reset within a one second time epoch was equal
to 1.05 mV js. Once this adjustment was made the integrator mode was set to
"integrator amplitude" and calibrated to reset at 40 mm. Thus, the integrator
amplitude and one-second modes were equted and calibrated to reset at 40 mm.
During recording the integrator amplitude mode was used and each of the resets
was equal to 1.05 mV j s of cumulative EEG activity. Once the two analog-filter­
integrator recording systems were equated, the cumulative integrated alpha over
time (and, therefore, alpha asymmetry) could be determined by counting the
differential integrator resets associated with the right and left hemisphere for a
particular task. Calibration was undertaken prior to testing each subject. Post
calibration measures revealed minimal or no fluctuations in precalibration adjust­
ments between and within recording systems.
Subsequent to electrode placement and calibration procedures, each subject
was seated in a comfortable chair in the dimly lit experimental chamber. After
insuring the presence of an adequate EEG signal (that is, free of 60 Hz artifact),
the subject was exposed to one of the two stimulus tapes in accordance with
a counterbalanced procedure. Prior to exposure to each set of stimuli the
subject was instructed to relax, keep his/her head immobile on a headrest and
to try not to move. These instructions were given to insure a relatively constant
head position and to reduce artifact. The subject was told to read each sentence
until he/she understood it and then to advance the slide to the next stimulus
item. After presentation of the 14 slides the subject was asked to orally recall
as many words as he could that were used in the previous stimulus sentences.
Each subject was given three minutes for this recall task. The high and low
imagery stimulus sentences were counterbalanced in their order of presentation.

Measurements
The primary data for analysis were obtained from the integrated alpha
amplitude measures, while the analog and filtered channels were used to
monitor signals for frequency and artifact (for example, EMG activity, 60 cycle
"noise" and eye movement superimposed on the EEG signal). When artifact
did appear in the signal an equal amount of time associated with the artifact
was deleted from the integrator channel of both ink-writing oscillograph systems.
Once the artifact was removed, the total and fractional number of 40 mm
integrator resets was determined for each hemisphere for both tasks. Reset data
were used to obtain hemispheric alpha ratio that was derived by dividing the
right hemiphere (R) resets by the right and left hemisphere (L) resets (R/R+L).
A score of 0.50 would be indicative of an equal amount of alpha in both
hemispheres. A score greater than 0.50 would indicate more right hemispheric
alpha while a score less than 0.50 would indicate more left hemispheric alvha.
Others measurements taken included the total number of words recalled by
each subject under both stimulus conditions, the mean imagery and verbal
 54 W. 0. Haynes and W. H. Moore, Jr.

scores from the IDQ and the amount of time taken by each subject to complete
each condition. The time measurements were derived from the timing marker
on the polygraph's ink-writing oscillograph.

Statistical Analyses
The alpha ratios for both tasks for the two groups were statistically evaluated.
A groups X imagery analysis of variance with one between subject variable
(groups) and one within subject variable (imagery) was completed.
Subjects' IDQ scores, number of recalled words, and time data for task
completion were also statistically evaluated with two way ANOVAs.

RESULTS
Analysis of Alpha Data
The female's mean alpha ratio score (mean = 0.52) was significantly
greater (F = 6.42; d.f. = 1, 38; p < .05) than that of the male subject's
(mean = 0.47). This significant main.effect indicated less left hemispheric
alpha for our female subjects across the imagery conditions. The F-ratios
associated with the main effect of imagery (F = 0.51; d.f. = 1, 38; p >.48,
high imagery mean ratio = 0.49) and the interaction effect of groups X
imagery (F = 0.08; d.f. = 1, 38; p > .77) failed to reach statistical signi­
ficance. This nonsignificant interaction reaffirmed the sex main effect across
imagery conditions as indicated by females having less left hemispheric alpha
for both high (mean = 0.52 and low (mean = 0.52) imagery sentences and
males having less right hemispheric alpha for the high (mean = 0.47) and
low (mean = 0.47) imagery sentences.

Analysis of Recall Data

Words of high imagery (mean = 16.00) were recalled significantly more
(F = 112.89; d.f. = 1, 38; p <.01) than were words of low imagery
(mean = 6.05). While females tended to recall more words (mean = 12.00)
across imagery conditions than did males (mean = 10.50), the difference
was not significant (F = 2.68; d.f. = 1,38; p > .05). The groups X imagery
interaction also failed to reach statistical significance (F = 0.48; d.f. = 1,
38; p >.05).
Analysis of Imagery Questionnaire Data
Results from the analysis of the males' and females' responses to the
imagery questionnaire demonstrated significantly higher scores associated
with imagery (mean = 133.23) as compared to verbal (mean = 112.83)
questions across groups (F = 8.47; d.f. = 1,38; p < .01). Female subjects
(mean = 128.55) obtained significantly higher scores across the imagery/
verbal question groups (F = 28.35; d.f. = 1, 38; p < .01) than did the male
 Sentence imagery and recall 55

subjects (mean = 117 .50). The two-way Interaction was not significant (F
= 0.01; d.£. = 1, 38; p > .91) and the direction of the means associated
with this effect reflected the significant main effects (females' verbal ques­
tionnaire mean = 118.15, females' visual questionnaire mean = 138.95,
males' verbal questionnaire mean = 107.50, males' visual questionnaire
mean = 127,50).

Analysis of time data for Comprehension of High and Low Imagery Sentence
Males and females showed identical mean scores of 2.18 minutes for
the time required to read sentences across the high and low imagery sentence
conditions (F = 0.00; d.£. = 1, 38; p >.99). While statistically nonsigni­
ficant (F = 2.04; d.f. = 1.38; p > .10) the groups X conditions interaction
means show females (mean = 1.79) to be slightly more rapid in reading
time on high imagery sentence than males (mean = 2.03) but slightly
slower in reading time for low imagery sentences (mean = 2.58) than were
the males (mean = 2.35). Reading time across subject groups was found to
be significantly less (F = 11.29; d.f. = 1, 38; p <.01) for the high ima­
gery sentences (mean = 1.91) when compared to the low. imagery sentences
(mean = 2.46).

DISCUSSION

Our present results indicate that the female subjects had less left hemi­
spheric alpha on both the high and low imagery sentences while the male
subjects had less alpha in the right hemisphere for these sentence condi­
tions. These findings are in agreement with other investigators (Davidson,
Schmartz, Pugash and Bromfield, 1976; Moore and Haynes, 1980a, 1980b)
that have employed EEG procedures in the investigation · of hemispheric
processing in males and females. The present findings are, however, in
disagreement with studies that have found more right hemispheric proces­
sing in females and more left hemispheric processing in males (Lake and
Bryden, 1976; Hannay and Malone, 1976a, 1976b; Moore and Lorendo,
1980) and investigations that have found left hemispheric processing in
both males and females (Moore, 1979; Hirshkowitz, Earle and Paley, 1978).
Moore and Haynes ( 1980b) have interpreted these differences amongst in­
vestigations as possibly resulting from disparate stimuli and task requi­
rements. Notably, they suggest that the activity-passivity of the subject's
task, the discrete-continuous nature of the stimulus presentation and the
segmental-nonsegmental aspects of the stimuli may individually and inter­
actively affect the hemispheric processing of males and females. Females
tend to show greater left hemispheric processing on an active task, em­
56 W. 0. Haynes and W. H. Moore, Jr.

playing segmental, continuous stimuli while males demonstrate right hemi­

spheric processing for these tasks and stimulus conditions. When the task
becomes more passive (i.e. perception versus production), the stimuli more
discrete (single word presentation versus connected verbal discourse) and
segmented (time dependent versus time independent) females tend to show
greater right hemispheric processing and males more left hemispheric
processing. Therefore, it appears that hemispheric activation may not only
be sex dependent but also task and stimulus dependent. If we are to com­
prehend the intricacies of hemispheric processing we must understand any
differences in neural organization between specific groups of subjects
(males/females, aphasics, etc.), as well as the task and stimulus effects
which function as independent variables that influence certain kinds of pro··
cessing strategies.
Another finding of the present study was that our subjects obtained
identical alpha ratio scores for the low imagery and high imagery sentence
types. This suggests that the subjects processed our two stimulus types in
a similar fashion. This is an agreement with studies cited in our review
that found no difference in the processing of high (concrete) and low ima­
gery (abstract) material. It is interesting to examine the conflicting results
of investigations in terms of the experimental tasks the subjects were
required to perform. The prior studies that reported a hemispheric pro­
cessing difference for high imagery versus low imagery stimuli used
"recognition tasks" (Hines, 1976, 1977; Ellis and Shepherd, 1974; McFar­
land et al., 1978; Day, 1977). These recognition tasks involved the sub­
jects immediately reporting what they saw or heard in tachistoscopic or
dichotic trials after the presentation of each stimulus. The investigations
that have found no processing difference between high and low imagery
words implemented recall tasks that involved later reporting of stimuli
after a series of items were serially presented (Borkowski, Spreen and
Stutz, 1965; Jones and Spreen, 1967; Moore and Lorendo, 1980; pre­
sent study). These conflicting findings raise two questions. First, are there
differences between recognition and recall that are substantial enough to
suggest alternate hemispheric processing modes for the two tasks? There
are many investigations that show differences between recognition and
recal performance (q.v., Eysenck, 1977). Most of these studies demon­
strate better performance on recognition tasks as compared to recall tasks.
Another difference that has been hypothesized between the two tasks
lies in the coding mechanisms involved. Loftus and Loftus (1976) sug­
gest that recognition and recall depend on different ways of encoding and
storing information in memory. Recognition may not involve elaborate
retrieval strategies while recall may incorporate these mechanisms (Eys­
enck, 1977). Finally, there are some studies that suggest that subjects can
form a "psychological set" for recognition or recall (Carey and Lockhart,
 Sentence imagery and recall 57

1973; Hall, Grossman and Elwood, 1976). In discussing their results,

Carey and Lockhart (1973, p. 300) state:
This means that the manner in which a practiced S encodes a given item
will depend in part on the anticipated form of the test. More generally this is
consistent with the viewpoint that Ss encode and store verbal material in a
format that they believe will permit optimal utilization.

These three real and hypothesized differences (performance, coding/

storage, psychological set) taken together support the notion that there
may indeed be a possible processing difference in recognition and recall.
If such a difference exists, it is feasible that the two groups of studies
mentioned above may have found disparate results because they used
different tasks. ­
The second basic question would be: why would "recognition" studies
show the relationship between high/low imagery stimuli and hemispheric
procesing while recall studies do not show this relationship? If linguistic
coding is involved in recall tasks due to long term storage and retrieval
strategies, then the left hemisphere would probably be more adapted to
this processing. Interestingly, all recall studies cited above show the left
hemisphere to be more active in processing the stimuli whether they were
high or low imagery. If one processes material left hemispherically in a
recall task despite the imagery value of the stimulus, there will be no
cerebral asymmetry between high and low imagery words. In recognition
tasks, however, it may not be necessary to involve linguistic coding for a
retrieval strategy. In the "recognition" studies reported above, there was
immediate stimulus support available seconds prior to the subjects' verbal
report. This represents a clear difference between the two groups of studies
mentioned above. This difference could allow the subjects in the recognition
studies to use coding strategies for short term memory since the stimulus
was recently present and there were no intervening stimulus presentations
to interfere with memory. The subject could store the perceptual/iconic
visual or auditory features of the stimulus word and use these cues to
assist in retrieval of the correct lexical item. No elaborate storage or
retrieval strategy would be needed. Recognition may offer the subject more
of an opportunity to choose a processing strategy because the task does not
automatically become left hemispheric as in recall. In recognition, a subject
could opt to code low image items left hemispherically and high image
items right hemispherically. It is interesting to note that four of the five
recognition studies reported that the left hemisphere was more active in
recognizing abstract items. ·
Analysis of the responses from the modified Paivio Individual Differ­
ences Questionnaire (IDQ) (Hiscock, 1978) revealed greater mean scores
for the imagery questions as compared to the verbal. Our analysis also
 58 W. 0. Haynes and W. H. Moore, Jr.

showed that females scored higher than our male subjects across imagery
and verbal questions. The finding that females score higher than males on
imagery questionnaires has been previously reported by other researchers
(Hiscock, 1978; Ernest and Paivio, 1971; Marks, 1973). One might initially
hypothesize that individuals with high imagery scores on the IDQ would be
disposed to cognitive stlyes that are more right hemispheric in nature (i.e.,
visual-spatial) when confronted with a linguistic task and further, this right
hemispheric disposition would be reflected in hemispheric alpha asymmetries,
dichotic ear preference scores, etc. Our data, however, do not support such
a speculation. The females in our study obtained a mean alpha ratio
score of 0.52 while our males obtained a score of 0.47. Thus, our males,
who obtained a lower mean imagery score, demonstrated less right hemi­
spheric alpha. This result is the opposite of what one would predict if
high imagery scores were predictive of right hemispheric processing. In­
terestingly, the males' and females' verbal scores appeared to be more
predictive of their modes of hemispheric processing. We ran correlational
analyses in an effort to further explore any relationships between the IDQ
scores and hemispheric alpha ratios for the high and low imagery senten­
ces; however, none of these correlations were significant.1 Our results do
not appear to support relationships between verbal and imagery question­
naire scores and alpha hemispheric ratios for the subjects in our investi­
gation. If imagery tests were measuring known hemispheric performances
then it would seem they could be predictive of hemispheric processing as
some researchers have reported for visual-spatial test (Hannay and Malone,
1976a; Hannay, 1976). It has been previously suggested, however, that
imagery questionnaires and spatial tests are not interchangeable (DiVesta,
Ingersoll and Sunshine, 1971). On the other hand, imagery may be a stra­
tegy for memory function and encoding or retrieval of information from
long-term storage (DiVesta et al., 1971). As such, comprehension tasks,
such as that used in the present study during the measurement of alpha, for
investigating hemispheric activation may not tap that part of the process
in which imagery may play an important role. Data on the relationship
between hemispheric asymmetries and imagery might best be obtained
while subjects are engaged in memory search and retriaval strategies rather
than perceptual strategies. The observation that imagery may not be a
unitary construct (Hiscock, 1978) and that we need to investigate antecedent
conditions associated with it as well as its interactions with task and
stimulus variables (DiVesta et al., 1971) is underscored when studying
the relationship of imagery to hemispheric mode of processing. Clearly,
we must understand the processes associated with imagery if we are to
1 Correlation between the variables for the 40 subjects were as follows: verbal ques­
tions with high imagery ratios 0.06, with low imagery ratios 0.04; imagery question with
high imagery ratios 0.16, with low imagery ratios 0.17.
 Sentence imagery and recall 59

understand the meaning of test scores which reflect these underlying

processes.
Our analysis of the recall data showed that significantly more high
imagery words were recalled as compared to low imagery words. This
finding is not surprising in view of prior reports that suggest and demon­
strate that imagery exerts a significant effect on memory and comprehen­
sion (Paivio and Begg, 1970; Paivio, 1971). Thorndyke (1975) also found
better recall for high imagery verbs as compared to low imagery verbs.
Hiscock (1976) demonstrated that high imagery adjectives were recalled
more readily than low imagery ones. Thus, there seems to be evidence for
a difference in comprehension and memory based on the high/low ima­
gery nature of the stimuli.
Analysis of the reading time data for the comprehension of concrete
versus abstract sentences showed that concrete items were processed
significantly faster than abstract ones. This finding is in agreement with
prior studies of comprehension time (Thorndyke, 197 5) and verification
time (Jorgensen and Kintsch, 1973) in which easy to image stimuli
(sentences) were dealt with significantly faster than difficult to image items.
In conclusion, our results suggest that the imagery value of a stimulus
alone is not necessarily related to the way we process information. There
may be an interaction of stimulus, task and subject variables that dictates
how information is dealt with in the brain. Future research must syste­
matically evaluate these variables and their interactive influence. Once
evaluated, single subject experimental designs can be used to validate the
importance of these variables in the manipulation of individual processing
strategies in normal and pathological groups.

ABSTRACT

Hemispheric alpha asymmetries were obtained for males and females during
the presentation of sentences comprised of high imagery and low imagery words.
The subject's task was to later recall lexical items for each imagery group. The
subjects were also administered a modified version of Paivio's (1971) Individual
Differences Questionnaire (IDQ). The results indicated that females appeared
to process both sentence types left hemispherically while males used the right
hemisphere for these stimuli. No difference in processing was found for the
two imagery conditions. Females scored higher than males on both subtests of
the IDQ and tended to recall more items from both imagery conditions. The
results are discussed in terms of stimulus and task variables which may affect
hemispheric processing.

Acknowledgements. The authors wish to acknowledge Gail Adkins and

Donna Arnett who were instrumental in data gathering procedures.
 60 W. 0. Haynes and W. H. Moore, Jr.

REFERENCES

BENTON, A. L., MEYERS, R., and PoLDER, G. J. (1962) Some aspects of handedness, Psy­
chiat. Neuro 1., 144, 321-337.
BoRKOWSKI, J. G., SPREEN, 0., and STUTz, J. Z. (1965) Ear preference and abstractness
in dichotic listening, Psychon. Sci., 3, 547-548.
CAREY, S. T., and LoCKHART, R. S. (1973) Encoding differences in recognition and recall,
Memory and Cognition, 1, 297-300.
DAVIDSON, R. J., ScHNARTZ, G. E., PuGASH, E., and BROMFIELD, E. (1976) Sex differences
in patterns of EEG asymmetry, Bioi. Psychol., 4, 119-138.
DAY, J. (1977) Right-hemisphere language processing in normal right handers, J. Exper.
Psycho].: Human Percept. Perform., 3, 518-528.
DIVESTA, F. J., INGERSOLL, G., and SuNSHINE, P. (1971) A factor analysis of imagery tests,
J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 10, 471-479.
ERNEST, C. H., and PAIVIO, A. (1971) Imagery and sex differences in incidental recall, Brit.
J. Psychol., 62, 67-72.
ELLIS, H., and SHEPHERD, J. (1974 Recognition of abstract and concrete words presented
in left and right visual fields, J. Exper. Psychol., 193, 1035-1036.
EYSENCK, M. W. (1977) Human Memory: Theory, Research and Individual Differences,
Pergamon Press, Oxford. ·
GATES, A., and BRADSHAW, J. (1977) The role of the cerebral hemispheres in music, Brain
Lang., 9, 403-431.
HALL, J. W., GROSSMAN, L. R., and ELWOOD, K. D. {1976) Differences in encoding for free
recall vs. recognition, Memory and Cognition, 4, 507-513.
HANNAY, H. J. (1976) Real or imagined incomplete lateralization of function in females?
Percept. Psychophys., 19, 349-352.
- , and MALO:I\'E, D. R. (1976) Visual field effects and short term memory for verbal material,
Neuropsychologia, 14, 203-209.
- (1976b) Visual field recognition memory for right handed females as a function of
familial handedness, Cortex, 12, 41-48.
HARNAD, S., DoTY, R., GoLDSTEIN, L., JAYNES, J., and KRAUTHAMER, G. (1977) Lateraliza­
tion in the Nervous System, Academic Press, New York.
HINES, D. (1976) Recognition of verbs, abstract nouns, and concrete nouns from the left
and right visual half-fields, Neuropsychologia, 14, 211-216.
- {1977) Differences in tachistoscopic recognition between abstract and concrete words
as a function of visual half-field and frequency, Cortex, 13, 66-73.
HIRSHKOWITZ, M., EARLE, J., and PALEY, P. {1978) EEG alpha asymmetry in musicians
and non-musicians: A study of hemispheric specialization, Neuropsychologia, 16, 125­
128·
HiscocK, M. {1976) Effects of adjective imagery on recall from prose, J. Gener. Psychol.,
94, 295-299.
- (1978) Imagery assessment through self-report: What do imagery questionnaires measure?
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., 46, 223-230.
HoLMES, V. M., and LANGFORD, J. {1976) Comprehension and recall ofabstract and concrete
sentences, J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 15, 559-566.
JoNEs, D., and SPREEN, 0. (1967) Dichotic listening by retared children: The effects of ear
order and abstractness, Child Develop., 38, 101-105.
JORGENSEN, C. C., and KINTSCH, W. {1973) The role ofimagery in the evaluation ofsentences,
Cogn. Psychol., 4, 110-116.
LAKE, D., and BRYDEN, M. {1976) Handedness and sex differences in hemispheric asymmetry,
Brain Lang., 3, 266-282.
LoFTUs, G., and LoFTUS, E. (1976) Human Memory: The Processing ofInformation, Erlbaum,
New Jersey.
McFARLAND, K., McFARLAND, M. L., BAIN, J. D., and AsHTON, R. (1978) Ear differences
of abstract and concrete word recognition, Neuropsychologia, 16, 555-561.
McGLONE, J., and DAVIDSON, W. (1973) The relation between cerebral speech laterality and
 Sentence imagery and recall 61

spatial ability with special reference to sex and hand preference, Neuropsychologia,
11, 105-113.
MARKS, D. F. (1973) Visual imagery differences in the recall ofpictures, Brit. J. Psychol.,
64, 17-24.
MooRE, W. H. Jr. (1976) Bilateral tachistoscopic word perception of stutterers and normal
subjects, Brain Lang., 3, 434-442.
- , and HAYNES, W. 0. (1980a) A study ofalpha hemispheric asymmetries and their relation­
ship to verbal and nonverbal abilities in males and females, Brain Lang. 9, 338-349.
-, - (1980b) Alpha hemispheric asymmetry and stuttering: Some support/or a segmentation
dysfunction hypothesis, Speech Hear. Res. 33, 229-247.
MooRE, W. H., JR., and LoRENDo, L. C. (1979) Hemispheric alpha aysmmetries of stut­
tering males and nonstuttering males and females for words of high and low imagery (in
submission).
- , and WEIDNER, W. E. (1974) Bilateral tachistoscopic word perception in aphasic and nor­
mal subjects, Percept. Mot. Skills, 3 9, 1003-1011.
PAIVIO, A. (1971) Imagery and Verbal Processes, Hot, New York.
- (1978) Imagery and familial ratings for 2448 words, Unpublished norms. Department
of Psychology, University of Western Ontario.
-, and BEGG, I. (1971) Imagery and comprehension latencies as a function of sentence con­
creteness and structure, Percept. Psychophys., 10, 408-412.
-, YUILLE, J. C., and MADIGAN, S. A. (1968) Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness
values of 925 nous, J. Exper. Psychol. Monograph Supp., 76, 1-25.
REMINGTON, R., KRASHEN, S., and HARSHMAN, R. (1973) A possible sex difference in degree
of lateralization of dichotic stimuli? paper presented at Acoustical Society of America
meeting, Los Angeles.
ROBBINS, K. I., and McADAM, D. W. {1974) Interhemispheric alpha asymmetry and imagery
mode, Brain Lang., 1, 189-193.
SEGALOWITZ, S., and GRUBER, F. (1977) Language Development and Neurological Theory,
Academic Press, New York.
THORNDYKE, P. (1975) Conceptual complexity and imagery in comprehension and memory,
J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 14, 359-369.
WHITAKER, H., and WHITAKER H. (1975) Studies in Neurolinguistics, vol. 1, Academic
Press, New York.
-, - (1976) Studies in Neurolinguistics, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York.
- , - (1977) Studies in Neurolinguistics, vol. 3, Academic Press, New York.

Williams 0. Haynes, Speech and Hearing Clinic, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36830.
W.H. Moore, Jr., Communicative Disorders Department, California State University, Long Beach, Ca·
lifornia 90840.