thanks for providing your expertise on the subject. Still I have to admit I would not even subscribe to your rephrased version: “faster to process” is a bold claim and I doubt that you could provide conclusive evidence that would point to how fast humans can “understand” concepts to begin with. This question is still part of the black box we cannot yet penetrate with current research methods in my opinion. Plus your claim is counterintuitive to my understanding of how meaning is computed in the vast arrays of networked information stored in the brain.

Now, the enhanced storage capacity sounds more plausible. As does the working load put on processing lanes (if you use the broca region as the sole throughput for information, it makes sense that you are causing a traffic jam – as is exemplified by the impossibility to listen to several conversations simultaneously).

However, the phrases Nick used are rooted in specific theories – the “phonological loop” especially is something I don’t buy. Not only is the theory some 30 years old and flawed in my opinion: in spite of what the Wikipedia entry claims there is very much evidence to the contrary. Semantic priming just being one example. That’s why I was so harsh on the research he pointed to. If you feel could back him up on this none the less I’ll have to make sure to get acquainted with the body of literature I seem to have missed.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
Jakob

I suspect part of what you’re objecting to here is Nick’s choice of language (though you — and he — should feel free to correct me here!). I think the contention is really about Nick’s use of the phrase “bypass the language centres of the brain”. You are right that this is not strictly accurate: any information that we process, no matter which route it comes in by, will still recruit the brain’s centres for meaning (semantics) and language (the phonological stuff). When I see the fish icon, my brain is still preparing to say “fish” and thinking about what a fish is (and what that particular representation of” fish” connotes), even if I’m not conscious of that and even if I have no intention of saying the word “fish”.

But it also seems highly likely that visual working memory and phonological working memory are different stores, each with their own capacity, and that you can absorb more information if you use both. So I might be tempted to rephrase Nick’s argument slightly, to something like “we know pictorial/iconographic information is faster to process, and that use of icons minimises the load on phonological working memory for someone listening to the speaker while also looking at the slides”.

Anyway, one or both of you should feel free to disagree with me :o)

Cheers,

Chris

I have to say, though, that I disagree with your reasoning behind it. Some of the psychology you cite to rationalise your choice of symbols is somewhat shoddy and at times just plain contrary to current research. Especially when you discount semantic properties for phonological properties – this is not how current cognitive science assumes your brain recognizes concepts.

So those images do not bypass the language centers of the brain and neither are they more precise than language – in fact they trigger linguistic concepts as soon as the visual information is mapped onto those and in doing so they are actually less precise than a word. It is just this activation of several “meaning entities” or concepts via a different route than linguistic activation that sets them apart from using language alone – they make connecting different meanings a lot easier.

The semantic properties of icons, i.e. the study of which concepts they do trigger and how far this amounts to a semiotic rule that mimics the semiotic principles of language is not a field where you could fall back on a lot of solid evidence, so you’ll have to rely on your experience and common sense. And I would trust your experience much more than any gratuitous reference to (in my opinion) insufficient research, to be honest. After all, the results of your presentation approach are quite convincing.