| Title |
Reinterpretation in visual imagery is possible without visual cues: a validation of previous research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-017-0956-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin L. Kamermans, Wim Pouw, Fred W. Mast, Fred Paas |
| Abstract |
Is visual reinterpretation of bistable figures (e.g., duck/rabbit figure) in visual imagery possible? Current consensus suggests that it is in principle possible because of converging evidence of quasi-pictorial functioning of visual imagery. Yet, studies that have directly tested and found evidence for reinterpretation in visual imagery, allow for the possibility that reinterpretation was already achieved during memorization of the figure(s). One study resolved this issue, providing evidence for reinterpretation in visual imagery (Mast and Kosslyn, Cognition 86:57-70, 2002). However, participants in that study performed reinterpretations with aid of visual cues. Hence, reinterpretation was not performed with mental imagery alone. Therefore, in this study we assessed the possibility of reinterpretation without visual support. We further explored the possible role of haptic cues to assess the multimodal nature of mental imagery. Fifty-three participants were consecutively presented three to be remembered bistable 2-D figures (reinterpretable when rotated 180°), two of which were visually inspected and one was explored hapticly. After memorization of the figures, a visually bistable exemplar figure was presented to ensure understanding of the concept of visual bistability. During recall, 11 participants (out of 36; 30.6%) who did not spot bistability during memorization successfully performed reinterpretations when instructed to mentally rotate their visual image, but additional haptic cues during mental imagery did not inflate reinterpretation ability. This study validates previous findings that reinterpretation in visual imagery is possible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#21,061,366
of 23,700,294 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#890
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,257
of 442,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#30
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,700,294 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.