Results

Table 1: Result times for verbal and visual tasks given in seconds.

Participants Visual Task Verbal Task

Visual Verbal Visual Verbal
Response Response Response Response
1 11.9 7.0 8.9 11.9
2 9.9 5.5 4.3 8.4
3 7.5 7.2 5.4 9.3
4 10.8 7.2 5.0 8.8
5 9.5 7.5 8.8 7.4
6 5.0 3.4 6.0 8.0
7 6.0 5.0 8.0 10.0
8 7.0 7.0 14.0 7.6
9 15.0 12.0 11.0 10.0
10 7.4 8.7 6.7 11.5
11 6.2 6.1 7.2 10.6
12 17.0 10.0 9.7 9.6
13 4.5 5.7 4.9 10.5
14 5.2 6.0 5.7 13.2
15 6.2 6.1 7.2 10.6
16 7.4 8.7 6.7 11.5
17 15.0 12.0 11.0 10.0
18 7.0 10.7 7.0 16.7
19 14.0 14.1 7.6 9.6
20 5.0 3.4 6.0 8.0
21 6.0 5.0 8.0 10.0
22 9.5 7.5 8.8 7.4
23 7.5 7.2 5.4 9.3
24 10.8 7.2 5.0 8.8
Mean 8.8 7.5 7.4 9.9

The results were measured in seconds to one decimal place and show a response
times ranging from as fast as 3.4 seconds to 17.0 seconds. They demonstrate that on
average between the participants, a faster visual response time for the visual task, and
a faster verbal response for the verbal task.
By use of the mean, the standard deviation was calculated as a measure of
dispersion from the mean, thus showing whether the scores obtained are creditable,
revealing any anomalous results. The results are shown in Table 2, overleaf.
Table 2: Standard deviation found from the mean results

Visual Task Verbal Task

Visual Verbal Visual Verbal
Response Response Response Response
Standard 3.7 2.7 2.3 2.1
Deviation

Figure 2: Standard Error equation

From calculating the standard deviation, the data could be further examined by
calculating the standard error, showing the positive and negative variation from the
mean in which 65% of the results lie. This will give an indication of the likely
accuracy of the sample mean as compared with the population mean. The smaller the
standard error, the less the spread and the more likely it is that any sample mean is
close to the population mean. Calculated results are demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Standard error found from standard deviation results

Visual Task Verbal Task

Visual Verbal Visual Verbal
Response Response Response Response
Standard 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4
Error

By this statistical analysis, a graph can be made up showing the mean results and the
standard error of each condition and response, shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: A graph to show mean response times (s) with standard error.

Discussion

The results obtained from the study ultimately support the original hypothesis as the
mean response time for the visual task was 1.3 seconds slower for the visual response
rather than the verbal response. Similar findings were observed during the verbal task,
2.4 seconds slower response time verbally compared to visually, and further evidence
found during the experiment saw that when participants were also asked which task
they found more difficult during both conditions, verbal or visual, and most found that
during the visual task, producing the visual response was harder, and vice versa.
 These findings show that the slower and more difficult responses were in fact that of
the same brain system being used, suggesting that mental imagery may use the same
visual brain systems rather than, in contrary to common assumptions, mental imagery
may simply be a store of knowledge in a different part of the brain, perhaps in long
term memory stores. They support Kosslyn’s findings (1999) that ultimately
demonstrated particular parts of the brain that encoded mental images, and findings
by Milner and Goodale (1995) that, in their experiments showed that smaller mental
images were harder to see and took longer to report details from than larger images,
showing a mental acuity profile similar to that of the real eye.
The statistical analysis of the results including the calculation of standard deviation
and standard error demonstrated that the largest standard deviation was found from
the visual task and visual response (3.7). Similar results were found when observing
the standard error, finding 0.7 for the visual response and task, compared to the other
task results. This exhibits a larger range of responses from the participants during this
condition, suggesting possible intervention of individual differences. Being a study
conducted in that participants were opportunistic, taken from those available at the
time, there were no particular criteria given in which future studies should take into
account. For example, variables such as age, gender and IQ may have affected the
participant’s response times.
Despite these findings, there have been arguments over the very existence of mental
image, particularly by psychologist Pylyshyn, using the notion of cognitive
architecture to support his views. Contradictory findings have also shown that simple
brain localization perhaps may not be the only factor contributing to mental imagery,
as found by Behrmann, Winocur, and Moscovitch (1992) who observed brain
damaged patients with bilateral thinning of their occipital lobes, which had disrupted
their object recognition but still had intact visual mental imagery. The experiment and
results found in this particular study does not provide any further argument
challenging these findings, however future studies should perhaps address the degree
of optical damage and it’s effect on mental imagery.