On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Sandy Harris wrote: > http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/memorable-images-0524.html >
Thanks Sandy. Somewhat flawed research, but interesting as far as it goes. One problem is that they are talking about memorability, but their operational definition involves a task that asks people whether they remember seeing an image before. For most people I suspect that a "memorable" image or a "memorable" occasion is one that has more to it than that we can remember that it happened. What they need is a check on the operational definition by, for example, having a separate group rate "how memorable is photo x, photo y, . . . " Ratings of memorability may or may not correlate with how well remembered the images are. Another problem is that they treat images in the abstract, and they ask their research subjects to react to many many images that came from somebody else. What they are leaving out of consideration is the emotional component. Images will be more memorable if they portray something that we are interested in, have a connection to. I would bet they had a youngish research sample, people who haven't had the opportunity to travel to the mountains or the jungles, to be exposed to various kinds of architectural spaces, etc. What even a youngish sample will have had experience with is other people and so they will better relate to images of other people and so they will remember those images. Which doesn't' make those images in any sense better, more desirable or even more memorable, and it is nonsense for them to talk about building their algorithms into cameras to give us an indication whether the scene we are chimping is a keeper or not. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
