Are perspectival shapes seen or imagined? An experimental approach

Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel experimental approach that would help to determine whether perspectival shapes, such as the elliptical profile of a tilted plate or coin, are part of perceptual experience. If they are part of perceptual experience, then it should be possible to identify these shapes simply by attending appropriately to them. Otherwise, in order to identify perspectival shapes they must first be constructed in the visual imagination. We propose that these accounts of perspectival identification can be tested by measuring the interference between visual and verbal working memory load, respectively, and the identification of perspectival shapes in the appearance of a 3D object.

Keywords

Vision Perception Perspective Imagination Attention Working memory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Galia Avidan, Robert Briscoe, Zohar Bronfman, Randy Clarke, Paul Conway, Baruch Eitam, Jonathan Folstein, Nurit Gronau, Sean Kelly, Arnon Keren, Ariel Meirav, Lior Shmuelof, Mark Wagner, Aaron Wilbur, Wayne Wu, Yaffa Yeshurun, and two anonymous referees for helpful feedback and discussion.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of learning and motivation, 8, 47–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar, M., & Biederman, I. (1998). Subliminal visual priming. Psychological Science, 9(6), 464–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briscoe, R. E. (2008). Vision, Action, and Make-Perceive. Mind & Language, 23(4), 457–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brogaard, B. (2010). Strong Representationalism and Centered Contents. Philosophical Studies, 151, 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (2010). Perception and Computation. Philosophical Issues, 20, 96–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291(5509), 1803–1806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eitam, B., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Motivation in mental accessibility: Relevance of a representation (ROAR) as a new framework. Social and personality psychology compass, 4(10), 951–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Enns, J. T., & Oriet, C. (2007). Visual similarity in masking and priming: The critical role of task relevance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3(1–2), 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fish, W. (2009). Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao, Q., Chen, Z., & Russell, P. (2007). Working Memory Load and the Stroop Interference Effect. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 146.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, J. J. (1950). The Perception Of The Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 377–442.Google Scholar
  14. Harman, G. (1990). The Intrinsic Quality of Experience. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hellie, B. (2006). Beyond Phenomenal Naiveté. Philosophers’ Imprint, 6(2). Retrieved from www.philosophersimprint.org/006002/.
  16. Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & cognition, 10(4), 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hibbard, P. B., Haines, A. E., & Hornsey, R. L. (2017). Magnitude, precision, and realism of depth perception in stereoscopic vision. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 25.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, C. (2009). Consciousness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopp, W. (2013). No such look: Problems with the dual content theory. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 813–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyun, J. S., & Luck, S. J. (2007). Visual working memory as the substrate for mental rotation. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(1), 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, S. D. (2008). Content and constancy: Phenomenology, psychology, and the content of perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(3), 682–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konstantinou, N., Beal, E., King, J. R., & Lavie, N. (2014). Working memory load and distraction: dissociable effects of visual maintenance and cognitive control. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(7), 1985–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(2), 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, H., & Vecera, S. P. (2005). Visual cognition influences early vision: the role of visual short-term memory in amodal completion. Psychological Science, 16(10), 763–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lycan, W. G. (1996). Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mack, A. (1978). Three modes of visual perception. In M. H. Pick (Ed.), Modes of perceiving and information processing (pp. 171–186). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Michal, A. L., Lleras, A., & Beck, D. M. (2014). Relative contributions of task-relevant and task-irrelevant dimensions in priming of pop-out. Journal of vision, 14(12), 14–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nanay, B. (2010). Perception and imagination: amodal perception as mental imagery. Philosophical Studies, 150(2), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noë, A. (2004). Action in Perception. Cambridge.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Noë, A. (2008). Reply to Campbell, Martin, and Kelly. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(3), 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Park, S., Kim, M. S., & Chun, M. M. (2007). Concurrent working memory load can facilitate selective attention: evidence for specialized load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1062.Google Scholar
  33. Pohl, C., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2010). Early and late selection in unconscious information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 268.Google Scholar
  34. Robbins, T. W., Anderson, E. J., Barker, D. R., Bradley, A. C., Fearnyhough, C., Henson, R., Hudson, S. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Working memory in chess. Memory & Cognition, 24(1), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rock, I. (1983). The Logic of Perception. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schellenberg, S. (2008). The Situation-Dependency of Perception. The Journal of Philosophy, 105(2), 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schroer, R. (2008). The woman in the painting and the image in the penny: an investigation of phenomenological doubleness, seeing-in, and ‘reversed seeing-in’. Philosophical Studies, 139(3), 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schroer, R. (2017). Hume's Table, Peacocke's Trees, the Tilted Penny and the Reversed Seeing-in Account. Mind & Language, 32(2), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwitzgebel, E. (2011). Perplexities of consciousness. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Siewert, C. (2006). Is the appearance of shape protean? Psyche, 12(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  41. Sims, V. K., & Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies. Memory & Cognition, 25(3), 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, A.D. (2002). The Problem of Perception. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Thouless, R. H. (1931a). Phenomenal regression to the real object. Part I. The British Journal of Psychology, 21, 339–359.Google Scholar
  44. Thouless, R. H. (1931b). Phenomenal regression to the real object. Part II. The British Journal of Psychology, 22, 1–30.Google Scholar
  45. Tye, M. (2002). Consciousness, Color, and Content. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Vishwanath, D. (2014). Toward a new theory of stereopsis. Psychological Review, 121(2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Watt, S. J., Akeley, K., Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2005). Focus cues affect perceived depth. Journal of vision, 5(10), 834–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yi, D. J., Woodman, G. F., Widders, D., Marois, R., & Chun, M. M. (2004). Neural fate of ignored stimuli: dissociable effects of perceptual and working memory load. Nature neuroscience, 7(9), 992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weksler, A. (2016). Retinal images and object files: towards empirically evaluating philosophical accounts of visual perspective. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weksler, A. (2017). Attention to mental paint and change detection. Philosophical Studies, 174(8), 1991–2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.University of HaifaMount CarmelIsrael

Personalised recommendations