The Effects of Neurological Priming on the Rorschach

Abstract

Abstract. This article introduces a new scientific paradigm that might allow the investigation of the neurological correlates of the Rorschach test without using expensive and time consuming tools such as the fMRI or the EEG. Based on the literature on the Mozart effect, we anticipated that preactivation of a given brain network before exposure to the Rorschach cards would associate with the increased production of responses (or determinants) presumed to be associated with that same network. To pilot test this hypothesis, we focused on the postulated link between human movement (M) responses and mirror neuron system (MNS) activity, and investigated whether preactivation of the MNS would associate with the increased production of M responses. Specifically, 30 students were administered a subset of Rorschach cards immediately after watching three short videos aimed at activating the MNS at three different levels (no/low/high activation). Although no statistically significant differences among the three conditions were found, a linear trend in the expected direction (p = .107), with medium effect size (η² = .087) was observed. In addition to providing information on the M response, this article introduces a new scientific paradigm to investigate the neurological correlates of the Rorschach.

Reassessment (after 15 Years) of Non-Patient Adults by the Rorschach Method

“…With regard to the determinants associated with movement, Rausch de Traubenberg (1998) stresses that responses with great movement (K) may be understood as elements of regulation and control that reflect the ego's role, in addition to evoking indicators of the ability to internalize, and the possession of intelligence, creativity, imagination. Recent studies describe the biological foundation of the human movement response and shows that it is related to the effective use of the mentalization function (Ando et al, 2015;Giromini et al, 2016;Giromini, Porcelli, Viglione, Parolin, & Pineda, 2010). Grønnerød (2003) discussed that variables related to state-like features of personality in CS were associated with lower stability levels; in his study, for example, state features were defined as the influence of the m (inanimate movement) and Y (shadding) scores and provided indications that state-like features have a negative effect on stability.…”

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on attribution of movement to ambiguous stimuli and EEG mu suppression

“…Other Rorschach determinants (i.e., form, color, and shading) may reflect distinct perceptual features recognized directly from the actual characteristics of the inkblots, while human movement responses (or M responses) are added to the stimulus field, presumably as a result of imagined activity (Exner, 2003). Several studies support the validity of the M responses as linked to an identification mechanism (e.g., Meyer et al, 2002;Viglione et al, 2012;Mihura et al, 2012;Giromini et al, 2016). The inter-rater reliability of the M response also is excellent (Cicchetti, 1994), indicating that two independent raters, blind to each other's evaluation, code for the presence or absence of M responses reliably, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 (Meyer et al, 2002;Mihura et al, 2012;Pignolo et al, 2017;Viglione and Taylor, 2003;Viglione et al, 2012).…”

When the unconscious contents are expressed in both Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) and dreams: An experimental study.

“…Rapaport (1950) explained that the test expresses the unconscious organizing principles of personality, which are seen as dynamic processes rather than the contents of a person's inner life. Given the static nature of the Rorschach stimuli, the perceived movement in a response is due to an interaction between the features of the blot and the inner world of the subject (Piotrowski, 1977;Porcelli & Kleiger, 2016;Rapaport et al, 1949;Rorschach, 1921), which often involves identification mechanisms (Giromini et al, 2016;Klopfer & Kelley, 1942;Piotrowski, 1957). Klopfer and Davidson (1962) suggested that movement perception reflects the subject's attitudes toward fantasies, instinctive drives, and unconscious conflicts.…”