Studies on the eidetic type and on eidetic imagery.

ver, H. Kl

doi:10.1037/h0070849

Cited by 74 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CPs appear to differ from classical reports of eidetic imagery in that they hold much less information than eidetic images (Kluver 1924). While simple objects or patterns (even novel ones) appear as vivid continuations of the percept prior to eye closure, CPs of multiple novel objects fade more rapidly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Central Visual Persistences: I. Visual and Kinesthetic Interactions

Ingle

2005

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phenomena associated with 'central visual persistences' (CPs) are new to both medical and psychological literature. Five subjects have reported similar CPs: positive afterimages following brief fixation of high-contrast objects or drawings and eye closure. CPs duplicate shapes and colors of single objects, lasting for about 15 s. Unlike retinal afterimages, CPs do not move with the eyes but are stable in extrapersonal space during head or body rotations. CPs may reflect sustained neural activity in neurons of association cortex, which mediate object perception. A remarkable finding is that CPs can be moved in any direction by the (unseen) hand holding the original seen object. Moreover, a CP once formed will 'jump' into an extended hand and 'stick' in that hand as it moves about. The apparent size of a CP of a single object is determined by the size of the gap between finger and thumb, even when no object is touched. These CPs can be either magnified or minified via the grip of the extended hand. The felt orientation of the hand-held object will also determine the orientation of the CP seen in that hand. Thus, kinesthetic signals from hand and arm movements can determine perceived location, size, and orientation of CPs. A neural model based on physiological studies of premotor, temporal, parietal, and prefrontal cortices is proposed to account for these novel phenomena.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Central Visual Persistences: I. Visual and Kinesthetic Interactions

Ingle

2005

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(pp. 434-435) In early twentieth-century studies, Klu¨ver (1928) and Jaensch (1930) comfirmed that eidetic imagers reportedly experienced negative after-images following mental images of extremely vivid colors. Moreover, in mid-century studies, Weiskrantz (1950) and Oswald (1957) found that vivid imagers' after-images of vividly imagined colors looked larger when projected against a background farther away, in accord with Emmert's Law and with Ku¨lpe's ascription of vividly imaged sensations to subjective qualities of the retina.…”

Section: Kü Lpe and The Construction Of Conscious Retinal Images Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

Külpe’s Imageless But Visionary Idea: That Vivid Visual Images Are “Centrally Excited Sensations” Which Are Constructed From “Imageless Thoughts”

Kunzendorf

2020

Imagination, Cognition and Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current article, Section 1 begins with the reconsideration of Külpe’s late-nineteenth-century thesis that all problem solving is based on “imageless thoughts,” from which conscious images are constructed by vivid imagers but not by non-imagers. Section 2 proceeds by reconsidering Bühler’s refined thesis that conscious images are constructed from imageless rules, and by considering the present author’s auxiliary thesis that constructed images serve to test newly developed rules for parsing percepts and generating images. Section 3 concludes by reconsidering Külpe’s psychophysiological thesis that vivid visual images are “centrally excited sensations” which are centrifugally constructed on the retina, in accordance with generative rules in the cortex. Twentieth and twenty-first century evidence in support of these theses is summarized throughout the article, in the hope that Külpe’s visionary thoughts lead to further research and testing.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, simple frequency statistics of previous sensory input and percepts, and even internally generated mental images (i.e. imagery) also affect perception (de Lange et al, 2018;Klüver, 1928;Pear, 1925;Pearson, 2019). For instance, repetition priming refers to the well-established phenomenon that exposure to perceptual objects facilitates their subsequent processing (Schacter, 1992) and mental images alone (in the absence of sensory stimulation) can drive the perception of ambiguous stimuli (Bergmann et al, 2016;Pearson et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modal auditory priors drive the perception of bistable visual stimuli with reliable differences between individuals [preprint]

Pálffy¹,

Farkas²,

Csukly³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It is a widely held assumption that the brain performs perceptual inference by combining sensory information with prior expectations, all being weighted by their uncertainty. Perception of ambiguous stimuli is influenced by higher- and lower-level priors, which can be manipulated with associative learning and sensory priming, respectively. Here, we investigate the differential effect of auditory vs. visual associative cues on perception of illusory visual motion, and we also take lower-level priming effects into account. Furthermore, we examine the test-retest reliability of individual differences and their correlates. Methods: Healthy individuals (N=29; 13 men, mean (SD) age = 27.8 (9.6) years) performed a perceptual inference task (640 trials) twice with a one-week delay. They reported the perceived direction of (illusory) motion of dot pairs, which were preceded by a visuo-acoustic cue that probabilistically predicted the direction of the motion. In 30% of the trials, motion direction was ambiguous, and in half of these trials, the auditory vs. the visual cue predicted opposing directions. Cue-stimulus contingency could change every 40 trials. To explore the relationship with self-reported alterations in perception and thought, schizotypal traits were measured with the short Oxford–Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences questionnaire.Results: Importantly, on ambiguous trials where the visual and the auditory cue predicted conflicting directions of motion, participants made more decisions consistent with the prediction of the acoustic cue. Increased predictive processing under stimulus uncertainty was indicated by slower responses to ambiguous (vs. non-ambiguous) stimuli. Associative learning influenced perceptual decisions: we observed slower responses to less (vs. more) predictable non-ambiguous stimuli and an above-chance rate of cue-congruent decisions on ambiguous trials. Furthermore, priming effects were also observed in that perception of ambiguous stimuli was influenced by perceptual decisions on the previous ambiguous and unambiguous trials as well. Critically, all the above effects had substantial inter-individual variability which showed high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.78). Finally, indicators reflecting the dominance of associative learning vs. sensory priming (higher- vs. lower-level priors, respectively) clustered together, these sets of variables were inversely related to each other, and some task-derived indicators showed stable and meaningful associations with schizotypal traits .Discussion: Overall, higher-level priors based on auditory (as compared to visual) information seem to have greater influence on the perception of illusory visual motion, replicating the sensory conditioning effect. The influence of lower-level priors was evident as well, suggesting that sensory priming was also in action. Importantly, we observed large and stable differences in various aspects of task performance. Computational modelling combined with neuroimaging could allow testing hypotheses regarding the potential mechanisms causing these behavioral effects (e.g. characteristics of visual vs. auditory processing, perceptual organisation and attention, and uncertainty). The reliability of the behavioural differences implicates that such perceptual inference tasks could be valuable tools during large-scale biomarker and neuroimaging studies.

show abstract

Studies on the eidetic type and on eidetic imagery.

Cited by 74 publications

References 33 publications

Central Visual Persistences: I. Visual and Kinesthetic Interactions

Central Visual Persistences: I. Visual and Kinesthetic Interactions

Külpe’s Imageless But Visionary Idea: That Vivid Visual Images Are “Centrally Excited Sensations” Which Are Constructed From “Imageless Thoughts”

Cross-modal auditory priors drive the perception of bistable visual stimuli with reliable differences between individuals [preprint]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About