Random shape recognition at brief exposure durations

Visual recognition memory for complex configurations

“…These relationships do not support a verbal mediation interpretation of differences in recognition memory for the stimuli used in the first experiment. These data are not in harmony with the recent findings of Clark, who reported that association value of random shapes is an important determinant of shape recognition (Clark, 1965(Clark, , 1968Clark & Knoll, 1969).…”

“…Not unexpectedly, responses to faces were most frequent (205), followed by ink blots (179) and snow crystals (132). It was reasonable to conclude, as had others (see Clark, 1968), that ease of recognition is related directly to ease of association; but a more fine-grained analysis, described below, suggests that this conclusion may be misleading.…”

“…NOTES I. Aspects of the subsequent discussion have been mentioned by Nickerson (1965) and Clark (1968) among others; the ideas bear repetition in the present context (see also Chap. 2 in Cofer & Musgrave, 1963).…”

“…The association-value measure is probably the measure of meaningfulness most frequently used in rriemory or learning studies with random shapes (e.g., Price & Hill, 1968;Clark, 1965Clark, , 1968Clark & Knoll, 1969). Perhaps with the present stimuli an association-type response differs from a response made by an observer who is planning to store the information for future retrieval.…”

Variables underlying the recognition of random shapes

“…Results were the same; shapes of high association value were recognized more accurately than shapes of low association value, and simple and complex shapes were recognized equally well. In a replication and extension of this study (Clark, 1968), the effects of exposure duration were examined. One group viewed each shape for 0.50 sec, and another group viewed each shape for 0.25 sec.…”