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

Harris, Judy

doi:10.3758/bf03206234

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence that the richer the visual contentin the image, the greater the degree of activationhas been collected by Finke and Schmidt (1978), who found that McCulloch effects induced by imagery were more pronounced in participants who experienced very vivid imagery. These results were confirmed by Harris (1982) and partially replicatedand extendedby Kunen and May (1980). In addition,image latencies are shorter in participants classified as high imagers (review in Cocude & Denis, 1988).…”

supporting

confidence: 72%

Generating visual mental images: Latency and vividness are inversely related

Reeves

2002

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, participants pressed a reaction time key and rated vividness after reading descriptions of common objects and imagining them as accuratelyas possible within a visual display subtending 1.2º or 10.8º. Display size had small effects on vividness and on image latency. Latency was much faster (~2.5 sec) for vivid images than for nonvivid ones (~7.5 sec), regardless of display size and initial size at which the images were generated (natural image size). Our findings characterize images as (1) detailed, as indicated by ratings of detail and by lack of category membership effects; (2) as occurring at many natural image sizes, so that time-consuming size adjustments are typically not needed; and (3) generated not concurrently with but after lexical access, as shown by latencies for the same image evoked by synonyms like pail and bucket. We conclude that image vividness and latency reflect the activation level of the visual imagery system, implying that image generation in everyday life mostly involves retrievingalready-computed representations episodically stored in memory, which seldom require extensive re-elaboration such as size adjustment.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 72%

Generating visual mental images: Latency and vividness are inversely related

Reeves

2002

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differences in attention, task interpretation, visuomotor coordination, imagery vividness (Finke & Schmidt, 1978;Harris, 1982), and abilities in different imageryprocessing modules (e.g., LOAD, PUT, REGENERATE, SCAN, PICTURE; Kosslyn et aI., 1984) are possible contributors to this variability. The individual variability extends the recent I (Qsslyn et al (1984) demonstration of individual differences in a variety of imagery tasks other than the scanning task, and poses problems for the Kosslyn (1981) analog theory which was predicated on the regularity in subjects' imagery performances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjects' expectations, individual variability, and the scanning of mental images

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The near-perfect correlation between mental imagery scanning times (averaged across subjects) and interobject distances on imaged maps has been cited as evidence for Kosslyn's (1981) analog theory of mental imagery. Present results (1) indicate that individual subjects' scanning-time/distance correlations vary as a function of instructional set (and, hence, a priori expectations), and (2)reveal a large degree of individual variability in scanning-time/distance correlations. Kosslyn, Ball, and Reiser (1978) found that scanning times between objects on a mental image of a map (averaged across subjects) correlated +.97 with interobject distances on the original map. From this high correlation, Kosslyn et al. inferred that the distances between different objects in the viewing field were relatively preserved in the images (analog representations) of that field (Kosslyn, 1981; Kosslyn et al., 1978;Kosslyn, Pinker, Smith, and Shwartz, 1979). Unfortunately, the scanning-time/distance correlations for individual subjects were not reported. This absence of data was regrettable, given Kosslyn, Brunn, Cave, and Wallach's (1984) recent demonstration of large individual differences in imagery tasks other than scanning tasks. Because the analog model purports to describe a perception-like process occurring within individuals, the first goal of the present study was to investigate individual subjects' scanning-time/distance correlations.As suggested by Finke and Shepard (in press), the second goal of the present study was to investigate an alternative determinant of mental imagery scanning results. Pylyshyn (1981) argued that the imagery-scanning task was "cognitively penetrable" (p. 21) (i.e., a task in which performance varies in a rationally explicable manner with subjects' beliefs, expectations, knowledge, or goals). According to Kosslyn (1981), "cognitive penetration is important insofar as it demonstrates that properties of strucThis research was supported in part by funds from the National Institute of Mental Health, PHS, MH3649I, and the Wake Forest University Research and Publication Fund to Charles L. Richman. This experiment was reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, April, 1984.We thankMelanie Payne, Donald Routh, Harriet Shaklee, and the reviewers for their constructive criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper. We are also indebted to DeeNortonfor his invaluable statistical guidance. Requests for reprints should be sent to David B. Goldston, Department of Psychology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. tures or processes are not fixed. We have claimed that the properties of the visual buffer are innately determined and they should not be subject to cognitive penetration" (p. 56). Because the analog theory cannot account for the possible effects of beliefs and expectations without the hypothesis of extra variables (and hence, extra degrees of freedom which negate the theory's predictive power), cognitive penetrability is a viable challenge to the notion...

show abstract

“…The Kinesthetic Aftereffect Task Koehler and Wallach's (1944) classic paper on visual aftereffects sparked widespread interest in aftereffect phenomena-an interest that has persisted to the present (e.g., Cowart-Steckler & Pollack, 1982;Harris, 1982;Huppert & Singer, 1967;Singer & Collins, 1972;Skowbo & White, 1983;Wenderoth, 1970;Wilson, 1965). Kinesthetic aftereffect (sometimes referred to as "kinesthetic figural aftereffect") has also continued to be of interest (e.g., Bakan & Thompson, 1967;Herzog & Weintraub, 1977, 1982Pollack, 1963a;Walker, 1978;Walker & Shea, 1974;Wertheimer & Sheets, 1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinesthetic aftereffect: One phenomenon or two?

Baker

Mishara

Kostin

1986

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kinesthetic (figural) aftereffect (KAE) studies almost always involve an aftereffect-inducing stimulus (I) that is wider or narrower than the test stimulus (T). I *" T has been presumed to be a necessary condition for KAE's occurrence. We contend that this, in part, reflects researchers' failure to use an appropriate control condition (here, I = T): Effects due to size difference and effects due to induction per se have been confounded. In a new study, which explored the relationships of I > T and I < T relative to an I = T control condition, I < T did, but I > T surprisingly did not, differ from I = T. Two different KAE phenomena apparently exist: an aftereffect induction phenomenon and a contrast effect. There is also an effect for the I = T condition of decrease in width judgments.Is there a single, contrast-type of kinesthetic aftereffect (KAE) or is there more than one type of effect involved in KAE? Earlier researchers apparently assumed that a size difference between the aftereffect-inducing stimulus (I) and the standard test stimulus (T) was a necessary condition for KAE's occurrence. They thus described KAE as a "contrast effect." In this paper, we explore the possibility that KAE might be due both to a size difference between I and T and to the effect of induction per se.

show abstract

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

Cited by 17 publications

References 11 publications

Generating visual mental images: Latency and vividness are inversely related

Generating visual mental images: Latency and vividness are inversely related

Subjects' expectations, individual variability, and the scanning of mental images

Kinesthetic aftereffect: One phenomenon or two?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About