Retention of visual and name codes of single letters.

Posner, Michael I.; Boies, Stephen J.; Eichelman, William H.; Taylor, Richard

doi:10.1037/h0026947

Cited by 518 publications

(266 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

248

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Demonstrations that psychophysical judgments made on patterns that are imagined are often similar to judgments made on patterns that are observed (Posner, Boies, Eichelman, & Taylor, 1969;Shepard & Podgorny, 1978) suggest that images and physical objects may be functionally equivalent at specific levels of the visual system. It has been suggested that, at such levels, mental images might activate processing mechanisms in the visual system directly, substituting for or competing with external visual information (Kerst & Howard, 1978;Moyer, Bradley, Sorensen, Whiting, & Mansfield, 1978;Segal & Fusella, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

The functional equivalence of mental images and errors of movement

Finke

1979

Cognitive Psychology

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 93%

The functional equivalence of mental images and errors of movement

Finke

1979

Cognitive Psychology

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For verbal stimuli, use of a visual short-term store has been demonstrated by testing recognition latencies (e.g., Posner, Boies, Eichelman, & Taylor, 1969). Use of a visual store for immediate recall of verbal stimuli has been demonstrated by testing supraspan lists of consonants (Laughery, Welte, & Spector, 1973) and by testing Chinese speakers for recall of Chinese ideographs (Yik, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Frick

1985

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments testing immediate ordered recall are presented; in these experiments, subjects engaged in repetitive speech ("articulatory suppression") during a visual presentation in order to prevent auditory recoding of the stimuli. In both experiments, a simultaneous presentation produced results that suggested the use of visual short-term memory, whereas a sequential presentation did not. In Experiment 1, visual confusion errors occurred more often than would be expected by chance for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. In Experiment 2, recall from visual short-term memory was expected to suffer more when subjects wrote a prefix than when they spoke a prefix; this effect occurred for a simultaneous presentation but not for a sequential presentation. These results suggest that existence of a visual shortterm store that retains a simultaneous presentation but not a sequential presentation.

show abstract

“…For example, in one of the earliest demonstrations of image-percept interaction, Perky (1910) showed that while intentionally imagining an object, subjects were less able to detect a brief visual presentation of that object as compared with cases where imagery was absent (see also Neisser, 1976;Posner, Boies, Eichelman, & Taylor, 1969). More modern replications of the Perky effect have repeatedly shown that visual detection (e.g., Segal, 1971;Segal & Fusella, 1970) and discrimination (e.g., Craver-Lemley & Reeves, 1992; Craver-Lemley, Arterberry, & Reeves, 1997;Reeves, 1981) are impaired by visual imagery (see also Craver-Lemley, Arterberry, & Reeves, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal integration between visual images and visual percepts.

Brockmole¹,

Wang²,

Irwin³

2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a temporal integration task, subjects in 5 experiments were expected to combine information from temporally separated visual presentations. Evidence from these experiments indicated that perceptual information can be integrated with previously generated and currently maintained visual images to form a representation that contains information from each source. Properties and limitations of this integration process were also explored, including the time required to generated the image, the speed at which percepts were integrated with images, and the capacity of the representation. Implications for theories of visual processing and memory are discussed.Phenomenologically, visual images and visual percepts are alike in many respects.1 This apparent similarity has led to a great deal of research assessing the parallels between images and percepts by searching for common structural properties of percept-based and image-based representations as well as shared neurological substrates between the visual perception and imagery systems. For example, considerable research has demonstrated that both images and percepts encode spatial dimensions and spatial relations among objects (e.g., Farah, 1985;Finke & Pinker, 1982;Kosslyn, 1973Kosslyn, , 1978Kosslyn, Ball, & Reiser, 1978;Pinker, 1980;Pinker & Kosslyn, 1978;Weber & Harnish, 1974). In addition, decision times for comparison of two imagined objects correspond to those for two perceived objects (e.g., Moyer & Bayer, 1976;Paivio, 1975). Like visual perception, visual images are limited in spatial resolution in that the amount of information contained in an image is constrained by the imagined object's size and distance (e.g., Kosslyn, 1975Kosslyn, , 1976Kosslyn, , 1978Weber & Malmstrom, 1979) as well as eccentricity in the imagined visual field (e.g., Finke & Kosslyn, 1980;Finke & Kurtzman, 1981b). Furthermore, just as closer visual inspection of an object from different points of view reveals previously unrecognized properties of the object, there is some evidence that manipulation of mental images can also reveal patterns in the image not apparent when the image was originally formed (e.g., Brandimonte, Hitch, & Bishop, 1992;Pinker & Finke, 1980), although it appears that such insight is more difficult with images than with percepts (e.g., Chambers & Reisberg, 1985).The behavioral findings that suggest that image-based and percept-based representations share a common structure are complemented by research that has shown that visual imagery relies upon some of the same neural machinery as visual perception and generates similar patterns of neural activation.2 For example, using a radioactive marker to observe cerebral blood flow, Roland and Friberg (1985) determined that imagining an object is associated with activation in the occipital, posterior superior parietal, and posterior inferior temporal lobes, all of which are involved in perceptual processing (see also Goldenberg et al., 1989). In addition, using positron emission tomography, Kosslyn and his colleagues (Ko...

show abstract

Retention of visual and name codes of single letters.

Cited by 518 publications

References 13 publications

The functional equivalence of mental images and errors of movement

The functional equivalence of mental images and errors of movement

Testing visual short-term memory: Simultaneous versus sequential presentations

Temporal integration between visual images and visual percepts.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About