1. The Effects of Imagery on Name Recall
Alden Esguerra
Ruben Cabrera 
Silva Chilingaryan

2. Literature Review
Past research has examined facial recognition/memory, and the biological bases behind it.
Study by Barsics and Bredart investigated the relationship between distinctiveness and semantic information on person recognition.. Conclusion: Identification of people is influenced by distinctive details and linked information.
Study by Race, LaRocque, Keane, and Verfaellie investigated the medial temporal lobe’s (MTL) role in memory for human faces.. Conclusion: Participants with damage had lower performance than the ones without the damage.
Study by Hanley compared participants on retrieval of names of object pictures and set of names of famous people... Conclusion: More phonological failures for face names.
Overall: All of the studies did similar experiments such as our. All past research had similar data with findings coming out that additional stimuli does help with recall.

3. HYPOTHESIS
Task 2 (related pictures) does better than Task 1 (only image)
Task 3 (unrelated pictures) does better than Task 1 (only image)
Task 2 (related pictures) does better than Task 3 (unrelated pictures)

4. Methods Materials -laptop -headphones -table & chair -paper & pen
Participants
-10 participants each (30)
-random sampling-friends, family, and anyone willing to participate.
-age: 16-62
Measures
Task 1(no extra image)
Task 2(related image)
-Each consists of 15 visual representation with an audio recorded name
Task 3(unrelated image)
-Presented at a rate of 6 seconds/picture
Materials
-laptop
-headphones
-table & chair
-paper & pen

5. -give clear instructions to participants
Procedure
-give clear instructions to participants
-present the Task individually to each participant
-30 second rest period
-Introduce the Test Task and have them recall the names
-write the ones they get correct as they verbally tell you the names

6. Results
IV: the type of accompanying stimuli (no picture vs. related-picture vs. unrelated picture); DV: total amount of names recalled
We noted that age was extremely skewed at a value of 2.49, which was something to consider.
One-way ANOVA results:
A significant difference in recall performance between the three picture type groups, F(2, 27) = 7.42 , p = .003, 2= 0.35.
Tukey HSD results:
No significant difference in recall performance between the related pictures (M = 7.6, SD = 3.95) and no pictures groups (M = 8.9, SD = 4.09).
No pictures group had a greater recall performance than the unrelated pictures (M = 3.2, SD = 1.93).
Related pictures group had greater recall than the unrelated pictures group (See Figure 1)

7. Results (con’t)
To further investigate the difference in recall performance between the related picture and unrelated picture groups, we calculated a Cohen’s d value.
d = 1.42
Indicated that picture relatedness had a large effect on name recall performance.
Figure 1. A comparison of name recall performance between the no picture group, related picture group, and unrelated picture group.

8. Discussion
Results indicated that the no-picture group performed better than both groups with additional stimuli.
However, the group with additional-related pictures scored higher than the group with unrelated pictures. Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Having a related picture helped participants remember more names than having an unrelated stimulus.

9. Discussion
Participants in groups 2 and 3 did not score as well when compared to group 1 probably because they were distracted by an additional stimulus (interference).
Semantic information contributed to overcome interference when group 2 and 3 were compared.
Participants from group 1 (no additional stimulus) scored better than groups 2 and 3 probably because they were not distracted with an additional stimulus, and had more time to rehearse people’s names.

10. Limitations Ages of participants varied significantly.
Some participants were tested under noisy conditions, which could have distracted them.