1/9
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
describe the pioneering studies of shepard and metzler (1971) and kosslyn (1973; 1978)
what fundamental conclusion regarding visual imagery can be drawn from these studies
shepard & metzler
mental chronometry/rotation
measured rt of mentally rotating one object to match another
mean rt were dependent on how much the stimulus had to be rotated
kosslyn
memorize picture, create an image of it
participants asked questions requiring them to “travel” through image
mean rt answer question depended on how far they had to move thru image
conclusion
imagery is spatial in nature
spatial representation interpretation of visual imagery states that info is contained in the visual images themselves
describe the criticisms of “spatial representation” model of visual imagery put forth by lea (1975) and pylyshyn (1973)
lea
the further people had to travel through their visual images, the more distractors they encountered
distractors caused the increased mean RT not the distance
kosslyn response
another task with 7 locations on an island and 21 potential trips
the only thing that mattered was the distance needed to travel through the image, not the distractors
concluded visual imagery is spatial
pylyshyn
actual visual image that we experience is an epiphenomenon
there is no information in visual imagery
info is represented in symbolic language like a semantic network
tacit-knowledge explanation
results can be explained by using real world knowledge unconsciously
we know in real life the farther we must travel, the longer it takes
briefly describe the “propositional” and “tacit-knowledge” interpretations of visual imagery
propositional
information is represented in symbolic language like in a semantic network
symbols, language
tacit-knowledge
results can be explained by using real world knowledge unconsciously
we know in real life the farther we must travel, the longer it takes
how did finke and pinker (1982) counter the “tacit-knowledge” interpretation
participants judge whether arrow points to dots previously seen
longer reaction time when greater distance between arrow and dot
no time to memorize → no tacit knowledge
briefly discuss how studies of relative image size (kosslyn, 1978) and priming (farah, 1985) support the “spatial representation” model of visual imagery
kosslyn
if imagery and perception are equivalent, we should be faster to answer questions about objects we’re imagining when the object is larger rather than small
participants imagine an elephant next to a rabbit or a rabbit next to a fly
people were faster to answer if rabbit had whiskers when it was next to a fly (larger)
suggests that imagery and perception are roughly equivalent in the brain, both respond to image size in the same way
also support spatial representation interpretation of visual imagery
if info was represented propositionally, it shouldn’t matter how large the image of the rabbit was
farah
participants imagined either an H or a T
two flashes on a scree, either an H or a T
had to determine which flash contained the letter they were imagining
performance on this task was better when imagines and presented letter matched
briefly describe neurophysiological evidence supporting the theory that visual perception and visual imagery involve overlapping neural mechanisms
category specific neurons respond both to perceiving a particular object and imagining that same object
neural activity to perception and imagery of a baseball and a face
describe neuropsychological evidence supporting the theory that visual perception and visual imagery involve the same neural mechanisms
describe the neurological cases which indicate that there is a double dissociation between visual perception and visual imagery
how can these findings be interpreted so that they are consistent with the conclusions of other neurophysiological and neuropsychological studies
briefly describe methods for improving memory that involve the use of visual imagery