Interpretations of imagery-induced McCollough effects

Imagery-induced McCollough effects: Real or Imagined?

“…Finke (1981) has disagreed with our interpretation and has suggested instead that an information overload resulted in the emphasis of local edge information. This interpretation deserves serious consideration but does not seem consistent with several aspects of perceptual processing.…”

Color aftereffect contingent on text

“…There have been reports that a color aftereffect contingent on orientation can be induced when homogeneous colored fields are presented and the subject is instructed to project imagined bar patterns of a particular orientation onto the colored field (Finke, 1981;Finke & Schmidt, 1977, 1978Kaufman, May, & Kunen, 1981;Kunen & May, 1980, 1981. It has also been reported that when perceptually ambiguous patterns are used as test figures, the perceived color depends upon how the pattern is organized (Jenkins & Ross, 1977;Jordan & Uhlarik, 1983;Meyer & Phillips, 1980;Milewski, Iaccino, & Smith, 1980;Uhlarik, Pringle, & Brigell, 1977).…”

The VVIQ and imagery-induced McCollough effects: An alternative analysis

“…In view of the recent discussion (Broerse & Crassini, 1980Finke, 1981) of the relationship between self-ratings of vividness of visual imagery and imagery-induced McCollough effects (Finke & Schmidt, 1977, 1978Kunen & May, 1980;Kaufman, May, & Kunen, 1981), it seemed worthwhile to look again at the original data (Finke & Schmidt, 1978, Table I) and examine how unequivocally they support the conclusion that subjects with visual imagery self-rated as more vivid report stronger imageryinduced McCollough effects (lIMEs). The reanalysis suggests an alternative view of the data, and of other effects which follow adaptation to partially imaginary stimuli.…”