Different cognitive processes in two image-scanning paradigms

Visual mental imagery and visual perception: Structural equivalence revealed by scanning processes

“…In this study, we relied on an image-scanning paradigm that was introduced by Finke and Pinker (1982) and refined by Borst, Kosslyn, and Denis (2006). In this task, participants see a pattern of dots.…”

“…Consequently, as the distances between the points increase, RTs should also increase. Numerous researchers (e.g., Borst et al, 2006;Denis & Cocude, 1989;Dror & Kosslyn, 1994;Finke & Pinker, 1982Kosslyn, 1973;Kosslyn, Ball, & Reiser, 1978;Pinker, 1980;Pinker, Choate, & Finke, 1984) have reported a linear increase in RTs with increasing distances scanned over objects in mental images. The conclusion of these studies was that the spatial structure of the representations underlying imagery affects the way that they are processed.…”

Structural properties of spatial representations in blind people: Scanning images constructed from haptic exploration or from locomotion in a 3-D audio virtual environment

“…The main finding from image-scanning studies has been that when people mentally scan the image of an object or a scene, their scanning time increases linearly as the scanned distance increases (e.g., Beech, 1979;Borst & Kosslyn, 2008;Borst, Kosslyn, & Denis, 2006;Dror, Kosslyn, & Waag, 1993;Kosslyn, Ball, & Reiser, 1978;Pinker, Choate, & Finke, 1984). This correlational pattern is generally taken to reflect the structural isomorphism between a visuospatial representation and the spatial layout from which the representation has been constructed.…”

The relation between body semantics and spatial body representations

“…Symbolic distance effects have been found when participants compared the sizes of familiar objects from memory (Dean, Dewhurst, Morris, & Whittaker, 2005;Marschark, 1983;McGonigle & Chalmers, 1984;Paivio, 1975) or the relative distance between body parts (Smeets et al, 2009;Struiksma et al, 2011) and these findings have been interpreted as evidence for the involvement of analog representations in visual imagery, by showing that the same principles that apply to visual processing apply to visual imagery. On the other hand, studies using the image scanning paradigm have shown that the mental scanning time across a visual image of a spatial configuration increases with increased distance between two points in the configuration (Borst, Kosslyn, & Denis, 2006;Iachini & Giusberti, 1996;Kosslyn, Ball, & Reiser, 1978). An intriguing question is if subjects implicitly retrieve detailed information about the relative distance between body parts, when making a semantic categorization on words referring to body parts or when making a judgment about the spatial representation of the human body.…”

“…Although subjects did not explicitly make a distance comparison, it could well be that during a semantic categorization task (Experiment 1) subjects implicitly activate a visual representation of the human body to determine whether both words are part of the same semantic category. The use of a visual representation to determine if two words are part of the same object should be reflected in an increase in reaction times with increased distance between body parts, conform the mental scanning hypothesis (Borghi, Glenberg, & Kaschak, 2004;Borst et al, 2006;Iachini & Giusberti, 1996;Kosslyn et al, 1978).…”