Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Kevin L. Kamermans and Wim Pouw shared first authorship.
Open Data: Data and materials supporting this research report can be retrieved from the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/rysfm/).
Is visual reinterpretation of bistable figures (e.g., duck/rabbit figure) in visual imagery possible? Current consensus suggests that it is in principle possible because of converging evidence of quasi-pictorial functioning of visual imagery. Yet, studies that have directly tested and found evidence for reinterpretation in visual imagery, allow for the possibility that reinterpretation was already achieved during memorization of the figure(s). One study resolved this issue, providing evidence for reinterpretation in visual imagery (Mast and Kosslyn, Cognition 86:57–70, 2002). However, participants in that study performed reinterpretations with aid of visual cues. Hence, reinterpretation was not performed with mental imagery alone. Therefore, in this study we assessed the possibility of reinterpretation without visual support. We further explored the possible role of haptic cues to assess the multimodal nature of mental imagery. Fifty-three participants were consecutively presented three to be remembered bistable 2-D figures (reinterpretable when rotated 180°), two of which were visually inspected and one was explored hapticly. After memorization of the figures, a visually bistable exemplar figure was presented to ensure understanding of the concept of visual bistability. During recall, 11 participants (out of 36; 30.6%) who did not spot bistability during memorization successfully performed reinterpretations when instructed to mentally rotate their visual image, but additional haptic cues during mental imagery did not inflate reinterpretation ability. This study validates previous findings that reinterpretation in visual imagery is possible.
Block, N. (Ed.). (1981). Imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buchanan, H., Markson, L., Bertrand, E., Greaves, S., Parmar, R., & Paterson, K. B. (2015). Effects of social gaze on visual-spatial imagination. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00671.
Burnett, L. (2015). Upside Down [Drawing]. Retrieved from http://leoburnett.com/articles/news/two-in-a-row-at-one-show-automobile-awards/. Accessed 5 May 2016.
Chambers, D., & Reisberg, D. (1985). Can mental images be ambiguous? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1522.214.171.1247.
Dalla Barba, G., Rosenthal, V., & Visetti, Y. M. (2002). The nature of mental imagery: How null is the “null hypothesis”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(02), 187–188. CrossRef
De Volder, A. G., Toyama, H., Kimura, Y., Kiyosawa, M., Nakano, H., Vanlierde, A., Wanet-Defalque, M., Mishina, C., Oda, M., Ishiwata, K., K. & Senda, M. (2001). Auditory triggered mental imagery of shape involves visual association areas in early blind humans. Neuroimage, 14, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0782. CrossRefPubMed
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Crowell.
Hyman, I. E., & Neisser, U. (1991). Reconstruing mental images: Problems of method. ( Emory Cognition Project Rep. No. 19). Atlanta: Emory University.
Jastrow, J. (1899). The mind’s eye. Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299–312.
Jastrow, J. (1900). Fact and fable in psychology. Houghton: Mifflin and Company. CrossRef
Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2005). The Necker cube—an ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research, 45(8), 955–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.006. CrossRefPubMed
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental imagery. Oxford University Press, Oxford. CrossRef
Kulvicki, J. V. (2014). Images. New York: Routledge.
Mast, F. W., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2002). Visual mental images can be ambiguous: Insights from individual differences in spatial transformation abilities. Cognition, 86, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00137-3. CrossRefPubMed
Morgan, M. J. (1977). Molyneux’s question: Vision, touch and the philosophy of perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, M. A. (1993). The ambiguity of mental images: insights regarding the structure of shape memory and its function in creativity. Advances in Psychology, 98, 151–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)60142-9. CrossRef
Pouw, W., Aslanidou, A., Kamermans, K., & Paas, F. (2017). Is ambiguity detection in haptic imagery possible? Evidence for enactive imaginings. In G. Gunzelmann., A. Howes., T. Tenbrink., & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2925–2930). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Pouw, W., Fassi, L., Aslanidou, A., Kamermans, K. L., & Paas, F. (under review). Reinterpretation in multimodal imagery and the role of manual enactment. Preprint a retrievable from: https://osf.io/ct4m3/.
Prather, S. C., & Sathian, K. (2002). Mental rotation of tactile stimuli. Cognitive Brain Research, 14, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00063-0. CrossRefPubMed
Pylyshyn, Z. (2003). Return of the mental image: are there really pictures in the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00003-2. CrossRefPubMed
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition. Cambridge: MIT press.
Röder, B., & Rösler, F. (1998). Visual input does not facilitate the scanning of spatial images. Journal of Visual Imagery, 22, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6457.
Sartre, J. P. (1940). The Psychology of Imagination. New York: Academic Press.
Slezak, P. (1991). Can images be rotated and inspected? A test of the pictorial medium theory. In Proceedings, Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, N. J. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination?: An active perception approach to conscious mental content. Cognitive Science, 23(2), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)00004-X. CrossRef
Tye, M. (2000). The imagery debate. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Reinterpretation in visual imagery is possible without visual cues: a validation of previous research
Kevin L. Kamermans
Fred W. Mast
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772