Abstract
The prolonged-inspection technique has been used to demonstrate effects of satiation on the perception of ambiguous figures. We propose that the inspection phase, in which subjects view an unambiguous version of the stimulus prior to observing the ambiguous figure, does not create neural fatigue but rather provides a context in which the alternative percept is apprehended and gains perceptual strength through processes such as imagination or memory. The consequent availability of the alternative organization drives the perceptual phenomena that have been thought to reflect satiation. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated that (1) preexperimental exposure to the target figures and (2) allocation of attention to the-inspection figures-were both necessary in order to obtain results similar to those predicted by the satiation model. In Experiment 2, we obtained similar results, finding that effects of prior inspection were greater the greater the amount and availability of information regarding the alternative percept during the inspection phase. Subjects who generated visual images of the noninspected alternative during inspection yielded results comparable to those from subjects to whom both versions were presented isuaily.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Babich, S., &Standing, L. (1981). Satiation effects with reversible figures.Perceptual & Motor Skills,52, 203–210.
Bagnara, S., Simion, F., Tagliabue, M. E., &Umiltx, C. (1988). Comparison processes on visual mental images.Memory & Cognition,16, 138–146.
Carlson, V. R. (1953). Satiation in a reversible perspective figure.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 442–448.
Cohen, L. (1959). Rate of apparent change of a Necker cube as a function of prior stimulation.American Journal of Psychology,12, 327–344.
Cornwell, H. G. (1963). Prior experience as a determinant of figureground organization.Journal of Experimental Psychology,65, 156–162.
Cornwell, H. G. (1964). Effect of training on figure-ground organization.Journal of Experimental Psychology,68, 108–109.
Epstein, W., &Rock, I. (1960). Perceptual set as an artifact of recency.American Journal of Psychology,73, 214–228.
Fantz, R. L. (1964). Visual experience in infants: Decreased attention to familiar patterns relative to novel ones.Science,146, 668–670.
Finke, R. (1980). Levels of equivalence in imagery and perception.Psychological Review,87, 113–132.
Finke, R. (1986). Mental imagery and the visual system.Scientific American,253, 88–95.
Finke, R., &Schmidt, M. (1977). Orientation-specific color aftereffects following imagination.Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception & Performance,3, 599–606.
Fluegal, J. C. (1912). The influence of attention in illusions of reversible perspective.British Journal of Psychology,5, 357–416.
Girgus, J. J., Rock, I., &Egatz, R. (1977). The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 550–556.
Hochberg, J. (1950). Figure-ground reversal as a function of visual satiation.Journal of Experimental Psychology,40, 682–686.
Hochberg, J. (1970).Attention, organization, and consciousness. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.),Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis (pp. 99–124). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Horlitz, K. L. (1988, April). Satiation versus past experience in the perception of reversible figures. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association (p. 40), Buffalo, NY. (Abstract)
Horlitz, K. L. (1990).Figurai reversals reappraised: The effects of attention, memory and imagery on the perception of ambiguous figures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
Johnston, W. A., Hawley, K. J., Plewe, S. H., Elliott, J. M. G., &Dewitt, M. J. (1990). Attention captured by novel stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 397–411.
Koehler, W. (1940).Dynamics in psychology. New York: Liveright.
Leeper, R. (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning—the development of sensory organization.Journal of Genetic Psychology,46, 41–75.
Liebert, R. M., &Burk, B. (1985). Voluntary control of reversible figures.Perceptual & Motor Skills,61, 1307–1310.
Neisser, U. (1976).Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Olson, R., &Orbach, J. (1966). Reversibility of the Necker cube: VIII. Parts of the figure contributing to the perception of reversals.Perceptual & Motor Skills,22, 623–629.
Orbach, J., Ehrlich, D., &Heath, A. A. (1963). Reversibility of the Necker cube: I. An examination of the concept of “satiation of orientation”.Perceptual & Motor Skills,17, 439–458.
Orbach, J., Ehrlich, D., &Vainstein, E. (1963). Reversibilty of the Necker cube: III. Effects of interpolation on reversal rate of the cube presented repetitively.Perceptual & Motor Skills,17, 571–582.
Peterson, M. A. (1986). Illusory concomitant motion in ambiguous stereograms: Evidence for nonstimulus contributions to perceptual organization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,12, 50–60.
Peterson, M. A., &Hochberg, J. (1983). Opposed-set measurement procedure: A quantitative analysis of the role of local cues and intention in form perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 183–193.
Peterson, M. A., &Hochberg, J. (1989). Necessary considerations for a theory of form perception: A theoretical and empirical reply to Boselie and Leewenberg (1986).Perception,18, 105–119.
Reisberg, D., &O’shaughnessy, M. (1984). Diverting subjects’ concentration slows figurai reversals.Perception,13, 461–468.
Rock, I., &Gutman, D. (1981). The effect of inattention on form perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 275–285.
Rock, I., &Mitchner, K. (1992). Further evidence of failure of reversal of ambiguous figures by uninformed subjects.Perception,21, 39–45.
Rosenthal, R., &Rosnow, R. L. (1985).Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Slater, A., Morison, V., &Rose, D. (1983). Locus of habituation in the human newborn.Perception,12, 593–598.
Spitz, H. H., &Lipman, R. S. (1962). Some factors affecting Necker cube reversal rate.Perceptual & Motor Skills,15, 611–625.
Toppino, T. C., &Long, G. M. (1987). Selective adaptation with reversible figures: Don’t change that channel.Perception & Pychophysics,42, 37–48.
Tsal, Y., &Kolbert, L. (1985). Disambiguating ambiguous figures by selective attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37A, 25–37.
Vetter, R. J. (1965). Perception of ambiguous figure-ground patterns as a function of past experience.Perceptual & Motor Skills,20, 183–188.
Virsu, V. (1975). Determination of perspective reversals.Nature,257, 786–787.
sVon Grünau, M. W., Wiggin, S., &Reed, M. (1984). The local character of perspective organization.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 319–324.
Warren, R. M. (1985). Criterion shift rule and perceptual homeostasis.Psychological Review,92, 574–584.
Weizmann, F., Cohen, L., &Pratt, R. J. (1971). Novelty, familiarity, and the development of infant attention.Developmental Psychology,4, 149–154.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported by the Rutgers University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. This article is based on K.L.H.’s doctoral dissertation research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horlitz, K.L., O’leary, A. Satiation or availability? Effects of attention, memory, and imagery on the perception of ambiguous figures. Perception & Psychophysics 53, 668–681 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211743
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211743