|
auditory mode of learning was superior for them, both for immediate recall and for recall after a delay of from five days to five months. In 1934 Stanton's experiments bore out this finding, but not with statistical significance in all cases. In the area of suggestibility, or influencing, Wilke found the audiovisual combination more effective, and since his subjects did not know they were being tested this experiment was more like an actual life situation. Frank R. Elliot notes that prior to 1932 simple or nonsense materials were used, and in these experiments the results favored the visual over the auditory mode of learning. But since 1932, when larger numbers have been tested, using connected, sense materials, auditory was favored over visual learning. Elliot conducted tests for recall and recognition, using fictitious advertisements. His results showed the highest scores in a combined visual-auditory approach, the next highest for auditory methods, and the third for visual. In discussing why the best results were obtained when audio and visual stimuli were combined, Elliot states that tests have shown that a summation of stimuli, facilitation, and heightening effects are characteristic of the simultaneous stimulation of two receptor systems. He notes that we hear better when we see as well, and that we see better with a combination of other sense stimuli—auditory, olfactory, and cutaneous. This phenomenon is accounted for by the spread of energy in the cerebrum, flowing in two—or perhaps all—directions. It was found that under combined audio-visual stimuli accuracy improved as well. The visual-auditory |
|||
|
