Abstract
In a recent article, Horlitz and O’Leary (1993) offer a reinterpretation of the results of several studies over the past 40 years that have employed the prolonged-inspection technique in the investigation of reversible figures. Specifically, they contend that, contrary to the favored interpretation of neural adaptation effects, the results of these studies reveal the combined influence of such topdown processes as attention and perceptual learning as well as such methodological difficulties as unwanted demand characteristics. In this note, we examine their analysis of the literature, their alternative theoretical model, and the supporting conclusions they draw from their two experiments. We argue that there is considerable evidence from a variety of studies for the joint role of bottom-up and top-down processes in reversible figures. Moreover, we propose that Horlitz and O’Leary’s own research, rather than eliminating the possibility of neural-adaptation effects, is best conceptualized as providing additional evidence for the role of higher-order processes in these phenomena.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Babich, S., &Standing, L. (1981). Satiation effects with reversible figures.Perceptual & Motor Skills,52, 203–210.
Blakemore, C., &Campbell, F. W. (1969). On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images.Journal of Physiology,203, 237–260.
Blakemore, C., &Sutton, P. (1969). Size adaptation: A new aftereffect.Science,166, 245–247.
Botwinick, J. (1961). Husband and father-in-law—A reversible figure.American Journal of Psychology,74, 312–313.
Brown, K. (1955). Rate of apparent change in a dynamic ambiguous figure as a function of observation time.American Journal of Psychology,68, 358–371.
Carlson, V. R. (1953). Satiation in a reversible perspective figure.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 442–448.
Cavanagh, P. (1992). Attention-based motion perception.Science,257, 1563–1565.
Chaudhuri, A. (1990). Modulation of motion aftereffect by selective attention.Nature,344, 60–62.
Epstein, W., &Rock, I. (1960). Perceptual set as an artifact of recency.American Journal of Psychology,73, 214–228.
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.
Harris, J. P. (1980). How does adaptation to disparity affect the perception of reversible figures?American Journal of Psychology,93, 445–457.
Hochberg, J. (1950). Figure-ground reversal as a function of visual satiation.Journal of Experimental Psychology,40, 682–686.
Hochberg, J., &Peterson, M. A. (1987). Piecemeal organization and cognitive components in object perception: Perceptually coupled responses to moving objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 370–380.
Horlitz, K. L., &O’Leary, A. (1993). Satiation or availability? Effects of attention, memory, and imagery on the perception of ambiguous figures.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 668–681.
Howard, I. P. (1961). An investigation of a satiation process in reversible perspective of revolving skeletal shapes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,13, 19–33.
Kohler, W., &Wallach, H. (1944). Figural aftereffects: An investigation of visual processes.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,88, 269–357.
Leeper, R. W. (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization.Journal of Genetic Psychology,46, 41–75.
Long, G. M. (1988). Selective adaptation vs. transfer of decrement: The conjoint effects of neural fatigue and perceptual learning.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 207–209.
Long, G. M., &Toppino, T. C. (1981). Multiple representations of the same reversible figure: Implications for cognitive decisional interpretations.Perception,10, 231–234.
Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (in press). A new twist on the rotating trapezoid: Evidence for neural adaptation effects.Perception.
Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., &Kostenbauder, J. F. (1983). As the cube turns: Evidence for two processes in the perception of a dynamic reversible figure.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 29–38.
Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., &Mondin, G. W. (1992). Prime time: Fatigue and set effects in the perception of reversible figures.Perception & Psychophysics,52, 609–616.
Magnussen, S., &Johnsen, T. (1986). Temporal aspects of spatial adaptation: A study of the tilt aftereffect.Vision Research,26, 661–672.
Mefferd, R. B., Jr.,Wieland, B. A., Greenstein, D. G., &Leppman, P. K. (1968). Effects of pretraining and instructions on validity of perceptual reports by inexperienced observers.Perceptual & Motor Skills,27, 1003–1006.
Nawrot, M., &Blake, R. (1989). Neural integration of information specifying structure from stereopsis and motion.Science,244, 716–718.
Palmer, S. E., &Bucher, N. M. (1981). Configural effects in perceived pointing of ambiguous triangles.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 88–114.
Pelton, L. H., &Solley, C. M. (1968). Acceleration of reversals of a Necker cube.American Journal of Psychology,81, 585–588.
Petersik, J. T., Shepard, A., &Malsch, R. (1984). A three-dimensional motion aftereffect produced by prolonged adaptation to a rotation simulation.Perception,13, 489–497.
Peterson, M. A., &Gibson, B. S. (1991). Directional spatial attention within an object: Altering the functional equivalence of shape descriptions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 170–182.
Reisberg, D., &O’Shaughnessy, M. (1984). Diverting subjects’ concentration slows figural research.Perception,13, 461–468.
Rock, I., &Mitchener, K. (1992). Further evidence of failure of reversal of ambiguous figures by uninformed subjects.Perception,21, 39–45.
Shulman, G. L. (1991). Attentional modulation of mechanisms that analyze rotation in depth.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 726–737.
Toppino, T. C., &Long, G. M. (1987). Selective adaptation with reversible figures: Don’t change that channel.Perception & Psychophysics,42, 37–48.
Virsu, V. (1975). Determinants of perspective reversals.Nature,257, 786–787.
von Grünau, M. W., Wiggin, S., &Reed, M. (1984). The local character of perspective organization.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 319–324.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Long, G.M., Toppino, T.C. Adaptation effects and reversible figures: A comment on Horlitz and O’Leary. Perception & Psychophysics 56, 605–610 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206956
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206956