LDI structure does not significantly affect cued recall of picture details or of interpretations themselves¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2–r3·q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Cued recall of descriptions of picture details showed no significant difference between LDI integrated and LDI separated conditions. → Manuela Glaser 2022
q3 i? Cued recall of interpretations showed no significant difference between conditions, not supporting hypothesis H2. → Manuela Glaser 2022 (2)
Evidence¶
Manuela Glaser 2022¶
Manuela Glaser, Manuel Knoos, Stephan Schwan. (2022). Localizing, describing, interpreting: effects of different audio text structures on attributing meaning to digital pictures. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09593-6
q3 · i? · causal · r3
ANCOVA on cued recall of descriptions (sum scores 0–48) controlling interest in history: F(1,52) = 3.07, p = .086, ηp² = 0.056, "no main effect of audio explanation format"; means were 19.19 (integrated) vs 17.93 (separated).
"The results regarding the cued recall of descriptions of details of picture elements showed no main effect of audio explanation format, F(1,52) = 3.07, p = .086, ηp 2 = 0.056"
Manuela Glaser 2022 (2)¶
Manuela Glaser, Manuel Knoos, Stephan Schwan. (2022). Localizing, describing, interpreting: effects of different audio text structures on attributing meaning to digital pictures. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09593-6
q3 · i? · causal · r2
ANCOVA on cued recall of interpretations (sum scores 0–48): F(1,52) = 0.21, p = .649, ηp² = 0.004, "no main effect for audio explanation format"; means 13.00 vs 13.34. Equivalence was not tested.
"With regard to cued recall of interpretations, there was also no main effect for audio explanation format, F(1,52) = 0.21, p = .649, ηp 2 = 0.004"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The effects of LDI structure on recall and recognition of linkages are fully mediated by fixation times on the referred-to picture elements — related
- Audio explanations with an LDI integrated structure lead to longer fixation times on referred-to picture elements during interpretation phases than LDI separated structures — related
- Linkages between picture elements and interpretation statements are better recognized with an LDI integrated than an LDI separated audio structure — related
- Time to first fixation of referred-to picture elements during interpretation phases is shorter with an LDI integrated than an LDI separated audio structure — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ldi-structure-no-effect-recall-details-interpretations |
title |
LDI structure does not significantly affect cued recall of picture details or of interpretations themselves |
description |
LDI structure does not significantly affect cued recall of picture details or of interpretations themselves |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — manuela-glaser-2022, manuela-glaser-2022-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.