Data Requirements for Satiation Theories: A Rejoinder to Price

Abstract

Some earlier methodological and theoretical criticisms of studies of revecsible perspective reported by Price have recently been examined by him. Several of these criticisms are expanded here, and some problems inherent in the use of grouped data relative to a satiation theory of perceptual fluctuation such as his are discussed.Geometric "ambiguous" figures, such as the Necker cube, yield two or more percepts which alternate as sudden changes in perspective. Some authors believe that as a given percept persists, instability increases as a result of accumulating inhibition, fatigue, or satiation forces in the brain and that at some point in time the percept changes as a result (McDougall, 1906;Koehler & Wallach, 1944). Price ( 1967b) recently proposed a two-process satiation theory,? and we replied (Sadler 8: Mefferd, 1970) that grouped daca do not provide appropriate support for a satiation-based explanation of perspective fluctuation. W e also questioned certain methodological procedures used by Price, to which he has responded (Price, 1971). Since these issues are critical to his conclusions, we expand our earlier discussion here.Over the years our results with a large variety of so-called ambiguous stirnuli are "seen" in alternating percepts, regardless of the relative dominance of the separate percepcs or of the specific instructions, and always involve very large intra-individual differences. For a large proportion of our 0s such variation with diverse viewing conditions, instructions, and stimuli is evident in daca pertaining to the first percept seen ( P l ) in different sessions, mean rates of fluctuation during different sessions, and most importantly for the present discussion, in the duration of succeeding percepcs within a session. This variation of intervals between flucmations is extremely large for most Os-a given percept (either PI or P2) may persist for a second or so, then be followed by one that persists for many seconds, then by one which lasts for less than a second, and so on.This type of intra-individual variation occurs at all stages in a person's ex-'and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and the University of Houston.Trice is privileged to contend that an intervening variable type definition of satiation consrimtes a departure from the concepts of Koehler and Wallach (1944); however, those authors were the first to formulate explicitly the satiation concepts which Price is atrempting to extend. Also, we contend that satiation theory is basically the same whether it is given a neurophysiological base or whether the box is painted "incervening-var~nble black" -there is a brain in there somewhere! W e should say at this point that we generalized too far in stating that Price's curves of P1 and P2 became equal. W e agree thnc the curves of mean data show that P 1 is ahuays longer than P2. W e only meant to say that the dramatic initial differences between P1 and P2 were gone by the fourth or so fluctuatioo.

Necker cube: Duration of preexposure of an unambiguous form

“…A number of the past studies on reversals of the Necker cube, and similar phenomena, have been motivated by the desire to test the satiation theory of Kohler and Wallach (1944) and decide between it and/or various alternative explanations (see Cohen, 1959;Cornwell, 1976;Pelton, 1969;Sadler & Mefferd, 1971). It is fair to report that the authors of these studies were not entirely in agreement concerning which theoretical conceptualization provides the best explanation for the experimental results.…”

“…The most used dependent variable has been reversal rate , as measured by counting reported reversals over a period of seconds or minutes . In some studies (see Sadler & Mefferd, 1971), the durations between reversals have been recorded . This free response procedure is somewhat lacking in controls, and the associated dependent variables would seem rather gross as indices of the underlying process.…”

Comparisons between 25 reversible and ambiguous figures on measures of latency, duration, and fluctuation

“…These opposing conceptions are represented by the extensive research that began with K6Wer and Wallach (1944) and Shafer and Murphy (1943), respectively. However, an explanation is not yet close to resolution (Attneave, 1971;Hochberg, 1962;Lie, 1965;Sadler & Mefferd, 1971). Investigations of more general empirical interest have manipulated the sequence of presentation (Lindauer, 1969) and other stimulus parameters [e.g., brightness relationships ], and the response has been correlated with personal dimensions (Lindauer & Reukauf, 1971).…”