“Imageless” Spatial and Temporal Rules Can Be Tested and Refined by Constructing Vivid Visual and Auditory Images

Abstract

In this computerized study, research participants completed both Marks' (1973) Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire and Kunzendorf's (1979) Vividness of Auditory Imagery Questionnaire and, immediately thereafter, completed either a visuo-spatial rule-development exercise or an audio-temporal rule-development exercise. During the visuo-spatial exercise, participants were administered 20 four-alternative quizzes regarding the schematic rules of 3-point perspective (3PP) and, between quizzes, were instructed to figure out the rules by constructing visual images that serve to test their developing schema. During the audio-temporal exercise, participants were administered 24 two-alternative quizzes regarding artificial grammatical rules and, between quizzes, were instructed to figure out the rules by generating auditory images that serve to test their developing grammar. Across 83 participants in the visuo-spatial rule-development exercise, greater development of 3PP rules correlated significantly with greater vividness of visual imagery, but not auditory imagery. Conversely, across 94 participants in the audio-temporal rule-development exercise, greater development of grammatical rules correlated significantly with greater vividness of auditory imagery, but not visual imagery. In the historical context of null correlations between image vividness and problem-solving success, the current correlational findings provide modality-specific support for Kunzendorf and Reynold's (2004-2005) and Kunzendorf and Buker's (2008-2009) thesis that the vivid imager's construction of sensory images from imageless rules facilitates the testing and refinement of newly hypothesized rules, but does not facilitate the application of previously developed rules to new problems.

Individual Differences in Deductive Logic, Abductive Logic, and Cognitive Styles

“…Finally, the presently suggested complementarity of deduction and Abduction 2 (discovery) is indirectly supported by our newfound association of “visual” cognition with Abduction 2 logic and our newfound association of tree structure cognition with both nondeductive and nonabductive logic, especially when interpreted in the light of research on individual differences in generating visual imagery (Kunzendorf & Buker, 2008–2009; Kunzendorf, Lyman, Sousa, & Hilly, 2012–2013; Kunzendorf & Reynolds, 2004–2005) and individual differences in using heterarchical representations or matrices (Kunzendorf et al., 2013–2014; Novick, 2006; Novick & Hurley, 2001; Schwartz, 1971; Schwartz & Fattaleh, 1972). Kunzendorf's recent imagery research indicates that the eventual discovery of a hypothesis accounting for unanticipated data is abetted by logically inferring and mentally constructing visual “test images” from potential hypotheses—test images which, if they incorrectly predict previously or newly perceived experiences, falsify any and all potential hypotheses from which the test images were inferred.…”

Külpe’s Imageless But Visionary Idea: That Vivid Visual Images Are “Centrally Excited Sensations” Which Are Constructed From “Imageless Thoughts”

“…In the third study, Kunzendorf et al (2012) sought, first, to replicate the preceding finding that vivid visual imaging facilitates the development of 3PP rules and, second, to determine whether vivid auditory imaging facilitates the development of rules in an artificial grammar for auditory tones (ArGrT). Participants in the study's 3PP group were administered two imagery questionnaires-the VVIQ (Marks, 1973) and the VAIQ or Vividness of Auditory Imagery Questionnaire (Kunzendorf et al, 2012)-and then were administered a computerized version of the previously described exercise for developing 3PP rules. Participants in the study's ArGrT group were administered the VVIQ and VAIQ, then were administered a computerized version of Conway and Christiansen's (2009) exercise for developing the following set of ArGrT rules:…”

“…In the third study, Kunzendorf et al. (2012) sought, first, to replicate the preceding finding that vivid visual imaging facilitates the development of 3PP rules and, second, to determine whether vivid auditory imaging facilitates the development of rules in an artificial grammar for auditory tones (ArGrT).…”

“…(2012) sought, first, to replicate the preceding finding that vivid visual imaging facilitates the development of 3PP rules and, second, to determine whether vivid auditory imaging facilitates the development of rules in an artificial grammar for auditory tones (ArGrT). Participants in the study’s 3PP group were administered two imagery questionnaires—the VVIQ (Marks, 1973) and the VAIQ or Vividness of Auditory Imagery Questionnaire (Kunzendorf et al., 2012)—and then were administered a computerized version of the previously described exercise for developing 3PP rules. Participants in the study’s ArGrT group were administered the VVIQ and VAIQ, then were administered a computerized version of Conway and Christiansen’s (2009) exercise for developing the following set of ArGrT rules:F # →C or FC→C # or FC # →C # or F # F→C # or BB→B or C.On each of 24 trials in this exercise, the computer successively presented 14 six-tone patterns—Examples 1–5 (F # -F-C # -C # - F # -C and F # -C-F-B-B-C and F # -F-B-C- F-C # and F # -C-C # -F # -F- C # and F # -C-C # -F # -F-B), Option One, Option Two, Examples 1–5 again, Option One, then Option Two—and, after the 14 patterns, presented an instruction to click on the Correct Option generated by the grammatical rules governing the examples (i.e., the 5 grammatical rules which are listed above and, presumably, had to be imagelessly hypothesized and imaginally tested by the participants).…”