Variables underlying the recognition of random shapes

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).…”

“…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.…”

Individual preference scales within a multidimensional "similarities" space.

“…For example, Aiken and Brown (1969) were unable to show that similarity judgments of noisy patterns would yield the same configuration as similarity and ease-of-discrimination judgments on the same nondegraded patterns. Clark and Knoll (1969) found that the association values for patterns were not related to any of the 12 factor analytically derived physical dimensions. Arguing for the consideration of individual difference effects in pattern perception, Silver, Landis, and Messick (1966) contend that "no one measure of the complexity or geometry of a visual form will serve to describe the dimensions used by individuals .…”

“…The ,5' s were tested individually. Kc.mlfs.-The entire matrix of similarity ratings, grouped across all 27 Ss, was entered into the MDSCAL multidimensional scaling program developed by Kruskal (1964) Knoll, 1969). The coordinates of the 16 patterns in this three-space are listed in Table 1.…”