Studies of visual synthesis: integration of fragments into forms.

On each of a series of trials, subjects indicated whether two sequential visual forms were the same or different. The first form was presented on some trials as a whole within a square frame and on others in fragments--with its perimeter distributed over two or three frames. The subject was instructed to visualize the first form as a whole in any case, and study time (ST) for the form was recorded. The same/different reaction time (RT) for the second, test, form (always presented in one frame) was also recorded. Experiment 1 revealed that variables affecting ST had little effect on RT and indicated that subjects can process fragments of forms in parallel. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the representation encoded from fragments differed from one generated from long-term memory. Whereas the first experiments used wholes as test stimuli, in Experiments 3 and 4 on some trials, fragments were used. In Experiment 3, RT was facilitated when a test fragment coincided with an intact fragment of the first stimulus. This indicated that first stimuli were not encoded as complete wholes. In Experiment 4, irregular forms were used as stimuli, and the RT data departed from predictions of the parallel model. Taken as a whole, the results place constraints on the codes produced by constructive processes acting to synthesize fragments into wholes.

[1]  J. H. McFarland,et al.  SEQUENTIAL PART PRESENTATION: A METHOD OF STUDYING VISUAL FORM PERCEPTION , 1965 .

[2]  S. Sternberg High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory , 1966, Science.

[3]  M I Posner,et al.  Chronometric analysis of classification. , 1967, Psychological review.

[4]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Pictorial and verbal encoding in a short-term memory task , 1969 .

[5]  M. Posner,et al.  Retention of visual and name codes of single letters. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Michael I. Posner,et al.  Abstraction and The Process of Recognition , 1970 .

[7]  P C Vitz,et al.  A model of the perception of simple geometric figures. , 1971, Psychological review.

[8]  A. Paivio Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[9]  John G. Seamon,et al.  Imagery codes and human information retrieval. , 1972 .

[10]  J. Townsend SOME RESULTS CONCERNING THE IDENTIFIABILITY OF PARALLEL AND SERIAL PROCESSES , 1972 .

[11]  Raymond S. Nickerson,et al.  Binary-classification reaction time: A review of some studies of human information-processing capabilities. , 1972 .

[12]  G. Bower,et al.  Human Associative Memory , 1973 .

[13]  R. Shepard,et al.  CHRONOMETRIC STUDIES OF THE ROTATION OF MENTAL IMAGES , 1973 .

[14]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  What the Mind’s Eye Tells the Mind’s Brain: A Critique of Mental Imagery , 1973 .

[15]  R L Klatzky,et al.  Using visual codes for comparisons of pictures , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[16]  Stephen Michael Kosslyn,et al.  Information representation in visual images , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Lee D. Rothstein,et al.  Memory scanning for words in visual images , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[18]  W. M. Yen,et al.  Sex-linked major-gene influences on selected types of spatial performance , 1975, Behavior genetics.

[19]  K. Gummerman,et al.  The enigmatic eidetic image: a critical examination of methods, data, and theories. , 1975, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Integration of features in comparing multifeature stimuli , 1975 .

[21]  Interactive visual imagery and memory search for words and pictures , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[22]  John R. Anderson Language, Memory, and Thought , 1976 .

[23]  Memory scanning of organized visual material. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[24]  S. Palmer Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.