Object imagery and object identification: object imagers are better at identifying spatially-filtered visual objects

Abstract

Object imagery refers to the ability to construct pictorial images of objects. Individuals with high object imagery (high-OI) produce more vivid mental images than individuals with low object imagery (low-OI), and they encode and process both mental images and visual stimuli in a more global and holistic way. In the present study, we investigated whether and how level of object imagery may affect the way in which individuals identify visual objects. High-OI and low-OI participants were asked to perform a visual identification task with spatially-filtered pictures of real objects. Each picture was presented at nine levels of filtering, starting from the most blurred (level 1: only low spatial frequencies--global configuration) and gradually adding high spatial frequencies up to the complete version (level 9: global configuration plus local and internal details). Our data showed that high-OI participants identified stimuli at a lower level of filtering than participants with low-OI, indicating that they were better able than low-OI participants to identify visual objects at lower spatial frequencies. Implications of the results and future developments are discussed.

Lack of control enhances accurate and inaccurate identification responses to degraded visual objects

“…With respect to previous findings on the modulatory effect of cognitive and motivational top-down processes on visual object identification (e.g., expertise, Viggiano et al, 2006; differences in visual object imagery abilities, Vannucci et al, 2008;needs and expectations. Bruner & Goodman, 1947;Bruner & Postman, 1947;Levine et al, 1942), our findings provide evidence for the effect of a new motivational top-down factor (lack of control) on identification processes.…”

“…For example, identification of visual objects, especially when the visual stimulus is impoverished and degraded, is affected by the person's expertise (Viggiano, Righi, & Galli, 2006), differences in visual object imagery abilities (Vannucci, Mazzoni, Chiorri, & Cioli, 2008), and motivations, needs, and expectations (Bruner & Goodman, 1947;Bruner & Postman, 1947;Levine, Chein, & Murphy, 1942). In this study, we investigated whether and how the process of identification of visual objects is affected by the person's need for control and whether this influence results in a better use of the physical information provided in the visual input.…”

Do questionnaires reflect their purported cognitive functions?

“…It has also been argued that there are multiple types of imagery, and this is believed to be captured in the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009). Indeed, when associated with laboratory visual imagery tasks, the subscales of the OSIVQ show different patterns of associations (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009;Sheldon, Amaral, & Levine, 2017;Vannucci, Mazzoni, Chiorri, & Cioli, 2008).…”

Shaping our personal past: Assessing the phenomenology of autobiographical memory and its association with object and spatial imagery

“…Specifically, individuals with high levels of visual object imagery (i.e., Object Imagers) prefer to generate concrete, pictorial, high‐resolution images of individual objects and they enjoy visual pictorial representations (e.g., paintings), whereas individuals with high levels of spatial imagery (i.e., Spatial Imagers) prefer to use imagery to schematically represent location, spatial relations, and objects’ movements (e.g., Kozhevnikov, Hegarty & Mayer, 2002; Kozhevnikov et al , 2005). Moreover, Object Imagers are good in visual object recognition tasks (e.g., filtered pictures task, Vannucci et al , 2008), whereas Spatial Imagers perform well in complex spatial transformation tasks (Blazhenkova, Kozhevnikov & Motes, 2006; Kozhevnikov et al , 2005). Recently, Blazhenkova (2017) has shown that individuals with high levels of visual object imagery reported higher levels of vividness of imagined emotional expressions, higher levels of emotional complexity (i.e., having emotional experiences that are broad in range and well‐differentiated), and they were also better in recognizing emotional states (conveyed by facial expressions and voice) compared to individuals with low levels.…”