Binocular Perceptual Discriminations of Authority and Peer Group Figures Among Over, Under and Equal Achievers

Wells, Hal M.; Bell, Deanne

doi:10.1080/00223980.1962.9713101

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In similar studies, the relatively brief stimulus-exposure duration that was used would be expected to have helped ensure that only a single stimulus was perceived (see Bokander, 1966). Thus, since Wells and Bell (1962) and Van de Castle (1960) presented their stimuli for only .5 and 1.0 sec, respectively, their demonstration that the stimulus perceived depended on the personality of the subject suggests that the meaning of the unseen monocular stimulus was nevertheless determined. Though in both experiments subjects occasionally did perceive both monocular stimuli, Van de Castle mentioned that this occurred on less than one third of the trials, whereas it would seem likely from the data that Wells and Bell reported that their finding would still hold if the analysis were confined to those instances in which a single stimulus was seen.…”

Section: Analysis Of Meaningful Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral selective processes?

Walker¹

1978

Psychological Bulletin

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditionally held notion that binocular rivalry reflects central selective processes that take effect subsequent to the analysis of both monocular stimuli contrasts with the currently popular view that the suppressed stimulus suffers inhibition, or blocking, at a relatively peripheral level. The available evidence supports the traditional approach. Though peripheral responses such as changes in pupil diameter or accommodation may be correlated with rivalry suppression, they may not be held responsible for the suppression itself. Similarly, processes of adaptation and contralateral inhibition are unable to explain binocular rivalry. Most importantly, however, there is evidence that the suppressed stimulus in rivalry is being fully analyzed and evaluated. Perceptual experience is thereby shown to reflect processes over and above the analysis of sensory information, and binocular rivalry suggests itself as a useful context in which to isolate and investigate these processes.Binocular rivalry was assigned an important place in early discussions of perception and attention (Breese, 1899;Helmholtz, 1911; James, 1890;Sherrington, 1947), since it was considered to reflect a central selective process that took effect subsequent to the analysis of the two monocular stimuli. However, rivalry is now regarded by many to reflect peripheral sensory mechanisms (Abadi, 1976;Bishop, 1973;Jung, 1961; Wade, 197Sa). Thus, recent neurophysiological evidence has made it easy to conceive of a form of contralateral reciprocal inhibition between the two monocular channels, at or before the level at which the channels converge (

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Meaningful Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral selective processes?

Walker¹

1978

Psychological Bulletin

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of several procedures which appeared to permit effective use of the parental photographic stimuli was the assessment of binocular resolution of competing stimuli. A variety of experiments (Bagby, 19S7;Davis, 19S9;Engel, 1960;Van De Castle, 1960;Wells & Bell, 1962) have provided support for the conclusion that, when meaningful materials are used as stimuli, the resolution achieved in the binocular rivalry situation is determined, in part at least, by factors of personal relevance and motivation (Ittelson & Slack, 1958).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocular rivalry and the study of identification in asthmatic and nonasthmatic boys.

Purcell¹,

Clifford²

1966

Journal of Consulting Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A method is described for studying motivational properties of identification in a group of 55 asthmatic and nonasthmatic boys between the ages of 8 and 11. Selective attention of a child toward his mother or father was measured by the child's resolution of a binocular rivalry test in which the competing stimuli were photographs of the child's own parents. Perceptual dominance scores derived from this test were then examined in relation to certain other perceptions of the child. Split-half reliability of perceptual dominance scores was .84. Perceptual dominance of the father was positively related to perceived power of the father among nonasthmatic boys (r=.37, p<.OS). Among asthmatic boys, however, this relationship was negative (r = -.48, p<.OS).

show abstract

The Influence of Stimulus, Set, and Subject Variables on Binocular Dominance in Normal and Schizophrenic Subjects

Riegel

Caldwell

1968

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binocular Perceptual Discriminations of Authority and Peer Group Figures Among Over, Under and Equal Achievers

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral selective processes?

Binocular rivalry: Central or peripheral selective processes?

Binocular rivalry and the study of identification in asthmatic and nonasthmatic boys.

The Influence of Stimulus, Set, and Subject Variables on Binocular Dominance in Normal and Schizophrenic Subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About