Modality-general Benefit Of Eye-closure On The Retrieval Of Intentionally Learned Information Part 2

2.3 | Material

Two lists of words were generated (one presented visually, one aurally; counterbalanced), each including 18 simple, non-composite nouns referring to categories like food, animals, artifacts, toys, and so on (for complete lists, see Appendix). During the visual presentation, each noun of the list was presented via PowerPoint on the center of a single slide, printed in Arial, 100 pt in black. 

Visual presentation is a common expression method used by modern people in work, study, and life. It can convey information intuitively through various forms such as charts, pictures, and videos. Memory is an important part of personal mental activities and is of great significance in improving work efficiency, improving academic performance, and maintaining quality of life. Therefore, there is a strong relationship between visual presentation and memory.

First of all, visual presentations can help people obtain information through multiple sensory methods such as images and sounds, and better understand and remember the content to be conveyed. Compared with traditional written expressions, visual presentations are more likely to trigger people's emotions and attention, making the information easier to accept and remember. For example, during the learning process, teachers can use PPT to explain the course and summarize the key contents through pictures and text on the slides. This way, students can not only better understand and master the knowledge, but also remember it more easily.

Secondly, visual presentations can help people better organize and present information, making the information clearer, and easier to understand and remember. Through visual presentations, we can divide, classify, and summarize information into chunks, making the information more systematic and organized, making it easier to remember and understand. For example, when making a sales report, we can use charts to present data and changing trends, which not only provides the audience with an intuitive cognitive image but also makes it easier for people to remember the relevant content.

To sum up, the relationship between visual presentation and memory is inseparable. Through visual presentation, we can better understand and remember the information to be conveyed, improve work and study efficiency, and at the same time maintain the quality of life. Therefore, we should focus on using visual presentations to convey information in our daily lives and work, and constantly improve our memory to better adapt to the development needs of modern society. It can be seen that we need to improve memory, and Cistanche deserticola can significantly improve memory, because Cistanche deserticola can also regulate the balance of neurotransmitters, such as increasing the levels of acetylcholine and growth factors. These substances are very important for memory and learning. In addition, Meat can also improve blood flow and promote oxygen delivery, which can ensure that the brain receives sufficient nutrients and energy, thereby improving brain vitality and endurance.

Click know ways to improve brain function

Each slide was presented for 3 seconds in an automatic mode. During the aural presentation, participants looked at a white, empty slide, and the prerecorded words of the list were played back with a time lag of 3 seconds. Before the aural presentation started, a white test slide was presented including the spoken sentence (“This is a test:”), requesting participants to adjust the volume of their technical device so that they could hear the following aural presentation.

2.4 | Procedure

The study was realized as a synchronous online study using the videoconference system Zoom. It allowed the experimenter to personally instruct the participants, to control their compliance with the instructions in the learning and test phase (e.g., closing their eyes), and to record their test performance.

Participants were invited to join the study to a certain date via a Zoom link by using their computer, notebook, or tablet for this study, not a smartphone. Before the study started, participants were asked to ensure that they were alone in a quiet room, that all other technical devices were muted, and that no other programs but Zoom in fullscreen mode were opened. 

Thereafter, a slide including general information on the study (duration, procedure) was presented and read aloud by the experimenter. Then, participants received a link via the chat function of Zoom redirecting them to a form asking for their informed consent, and to an online questionnaire, asking for their demographic data. When participants met all inclusion criteria (see Section 2.2), they were asked to close the browser and return to Zoom in full-screen mode to proceed with the main study.

When they returned, the experimenter read the instructions, asking participants to study the word lists that would be presented attentively because they would have to recall these words later. Participants were also told that making notes or using other aids was not allowed, which was also monitored by the experimenter. Thereafter, the word lists were presented (one word list visually and the other one aurally, with an order of the word lists and of presentation mode counterbalanced). The experimenter remained visible in a small window in one corner of the screen during the presentation of the word lists.

Each list followed a short distractor task to prevent participants from memorizing the words (i.e., counting from 143 or 113, respectively, in steps of 3 backward, lasting approximately 1 min). Thereafter, the test phase followed in which participants had to verbally recall the presented words without a time limit. During recall, participants were instructed by the experimenter to either keep their eyes open (n = 65) and to look at the screen, where the experimenter was visible as full-screen keeping eye contact, or to close their eyes and to keep them closed until no further word of the list came into their mind (n = 64). 

The experimenter observed the participants, ensuring that they complied with the instructions and reminded them to close their eyes in the few cases it was necessary, and recorded the responses. In the end, the experimenter debriefed the participants concerning the hypotheses and thanked them for their participation.

3 | RESULTS

Because there were hardly any false recalls or between-list confusions (see also Parker et al., 2022, for similar findings), they were not considered further. A preliminary analysis confirmed the comparability of the two lists of words concerning memory performance, F (1, 127) = 2.35, p = .13, which was confirmed by a Bayesian analysis, using JASP 16.4 (JASP Team, 2022), yielding moderate evidence for a null effect (BF10 = 0.2, % error: 0.0). To test whether closing the eyes led to a better memory performance than keeping the eyes open, and whether the effect was larger when words had been presented visually than aurally, a 2 x 2 mixed ANOVA was computed with the between-subjects factor eye-closure and the withinsubjects factor presentation modality (for descriptive statistics, see Table 1). 

As expected, closing the eyes resulted in a better recall performance than keeping the eyes open, F(1, 127) = 13.47, p < .001, ηp 2 = 0.10. The main effect of presentation modality was not significant, F(1, 127) = 3.12, p = .08, ηp 2 = 0.02, which was also true for the interaction of the two variables, F(1, 127) = 0.19, p = .66. These results were confirmed by a Bayesian ANOVA, revealing the strongest evidence for the model including eyes closure as only factor to explain the data (BF10 = 74.1, % error: 2.8). For presentation modality, there was anecdotal evidence in favor of a null effect (BF10 = 0.6, % error: 1.1), and for the interaction, there was moderate evidence in favor of a null effect (BF10 = 0.2, % error: 0.1).

4 | DISCUSSION

This experiment investigated whether the beneficial effect of closing one's eyes during recall also emerges for the recall of intentionally learned verbal information and whether the effect is modality-specific, boosting visual memory only, or general, boosting auditory memory. To test modality-specificity, the information to be learned was held constant across the visual and aural presentation, which is rather impossible when the eye-closure effect is examined in the retrieval of episodic, natural scenes. In addition, the material had a verbal format in both conditions (i.e., words, presented aurally or visually) to keep verbal information comparable.

Participants recalled studied words significantly better when they closed their eyes during recall than when they kept their eyes open. Importantly, the effect emerged for both visually and aurally presented words. The results imply that there is a beneficial eye-closure effect for recalling intentionally learned verbal information, which is modality-general, because the effect was revealed for auditive information, too. Thus, closing the eyes during retrieval might reduce cognitive load, saving modality-general cognitive resources that are otherwise used to process the environment (e.g., Perfect et al., 2008). These resources could, in turn, be deployed to more elaborative and therewith more successful retrieval. 

These findings have important implications going far beyond eye-witness memory because they might be transferred to more formal, intentional learning situations. The modality-general effect of eye closure on the recall of intentionally learned content suggests that it might be helpful for learners to close their eyes when trying to retrieve information that they have acquired in school or university lessons or their learning phases at home. As pointed out by the present study, the benefit might emerge for both auditory (e.g., explanations of the teacher) and visual material (e.g., information shown on a blackboard).

To assess these ideas, further research including more complex, coherent material, typically used in the context of intentional learning, is required. Given that the eye-closure effect emerged for the retrieval of incidentally learned complex episodic events (e.g., Vredeveldt et al., 2011), it is expected that it will emerge also for intentionally learned complex material. The finding that closing the eyes also promotes the solving of arithmetic tasks (Glenberg et al., 1998, Exp. 5) reinforces this assumption.

A limitation of the present study is that the word lists presented visually and aurally (see Appendix) largely included visualizable terms (e.g., tennis). Thus, even if there was only a main effect of eye-closure across both presentation modalities, but no interaction of eye-closure and presentation modality, it cannot fully be ruled out that participants also used visual imagery to retrieve the aurally presented words and that therefore eye-closure had also an effect for this kind of presentation. To test this, two lists of words could be used in future research, one including visualizable terms and another one including more abstract, not visualizable terms (e.g., freedom) that are presented visually or aurally. If there was a positive main effect of eye closure for both lists in both presentation conditions, the assumption of a modality-general effect would be strengthened.

In addition, the experimenter, visible on the monitor in the open eyes condition, could have served as a social stressor, which might have additionally impaired participants' recall performance. Even if such situations are usual in formal educational contexts (e.g., oral exams), it seems promising to examine the eye-closure effect on intentionally learned material with another control condition, not including a social stimulus but a short movie (see Glenberg et al., 1998) or just the pure environment without the experimenter. It would also be interesting to see whether the effect emerges to the same degree when learning and recall take place in real interactions instead of in an online setting.

To sum up, closing the eyes promotes the retrieval of intentionally acquired verbal information, independently of whether it was presented visually or aurally. This effect could be a promising candidate to boost memory performance in real-world learning contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are due to Sophia Samweber for creating the material, collecting the data, and providing further support in conducting this study and to Annika Schäfer for her support of the data collection. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

REFERENCES

1.Caruso, E. M., & Gino, F. (2011). Blind ethics: Closing one's eyes polarizes moral judgments and discourages dishonest behavior. Cognition, 118, 280–285.

2.Craik, F. I. (2014). Effects of distraction on memory and cognition: A commentary. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 841.

3. Einstein, G. O., Earles, J. L., & Collins, H. M. (2002). Gaze aversion: Spared inhibition for visual distraction in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, P65–P73.

4.Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

5.Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition, 26, 651–658.

6. JASP Team. (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.4) [Computer software]. Kyriakidou, M., Blades, M., & Carroll, D. (2014). Inconsistent findings for the eyes closed effect in children: The implications for interviewing child witnesses. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 448

7.Mastroberardino, S., & Vredeveldt, A. (2014). Eye-closure increases children's memory accuracy for visual material. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 241.

8.Parker, A., & Dagnall, N. (2020). Eye-closure and the retrieval of item-specific information in, eye-closure & the retrieval of item-specific information in recognition memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 77, 102858.

For more information:1950477648nn@gmail.com