Priming effects with ambiguous figures

We varied the format and semantic content of primes to determine the degree to which they would influence the interpretation of ambiguous figures. The primes were objects or object names that were related in some way to one of the two organizations of the ambiguous figures. In Experiment 1, we provided some normative data regarding the stimulus materials, whereas in Experiment 2, an orienting question was used to focus attention on the semantic relationship between the prime and the figure. In Experiment 3, we used the orienting question to divert attention away from the relationship by asking about physical features of the figures. Recognition responses to biased versions of the figures and to new figures were measured. Primes that were loosely and indirectly associated with one of the two interpretations of an ambiguous figure were found to be effective at biasing the interpretation of an ambiguous figure in the direction of the primed alternative but only if attention was focused on the semantic relationship between the two stimuli. Attention to the physical characteristics of the stimuli during encoding eliminated the prime’s influence on complex object perception. These findings are consistent with the conceptual priming literature and extend those of some recent studies (Balcetis & Dale, 2007; Feist & Gentner, 2007), which show that the interpretation of complex figures can be biased by the advanced presentation of related verbal information.

[1]  M J Farah,et al.  Semantic and perceptual priming: how similar are the underlying mechanisms? , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Alan Richardson-Klavehn,et al.  Component processes of conceptual priming and associative cued recall: the roles of preexisting representation and depth of processing. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Rick Dale,et al.  Conceptual Set as a Top — Down Constraint on Visual Object Identification , 2007, Perception.

[4]  Jack Botwinick,et al.  Husband and Father-in-Law: A Reversible Figure , 1961 .

[5]  R. Leeper A Study of a Neglected Portion of the Field of Learning—the Development of Sensory Organization , 1935 .

[6]  E Tulving,et al.  Priming and human memory systems. , 1990, Science.

[7]  B. Gibson,et al.  Must Figure-Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril , 1994 .

[8]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: alternating views of reversible figures. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  M. Peterson,et al.  Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground reversal: which route counts? , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  M. Peterson Chapter 6 The Ambiguity of Mental Images: Insights Regarding the Structure of Shape Memory and Its Function in Creativity , 1993 .

[11]  P. Goolkasian Ambiguous figures: role of context and critical features. , 1987, The Journal of general psychology.

[12]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Language Comprehenders Mentally Represent the Shapes of Objects , 2002, Psychological science.

[13]  J. Grier,et al.  NONPARAMETRIC INDEXES FOR SENSITIVITY AND BIAS , 2005 .

[14]  I. Rock,et al.  The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures , 1977 .

[15]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  Conceptual versus Perceptual Priming in Incomplete Picture Identification , 2005, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[16]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[17]  E. Boring A new ambiguous figure. , 1930 .

[18]  J. Henderson,et al.  Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception? , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  N. Mulligan,et al.  Attention and implicit memory in the category-verification and lexical decision tasks. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  H Intraub,et al.  Levels of processing and picture memory: the physical superiority effect. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Stephen Wallace,et al.  Figure and Ground , 1982 .

[22]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[23]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[24]  J. Grier,et al.  Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: computing formulas. , 1971, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  B. R. Bugelski,et al.  The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets. , 1961, Canadian journal of psychology.

[26]  I Rock,et al.  Further Evidence of Failure of Reversal of Ambiguous Figures by Uninformed Subjects , 1992, Perception.

[27]  L. A. N. Esq.,et al.  LXI. Observations on some remarkable optical phænomena seen in Switzerland; and on an optical phænomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid , 1832 .

[28]  I. Biederman,et al.  Subliminal visual priming , 1997, Neuroscience Letters.

[29]  F. C. Barker XXIX. Collective effects in nuclei of mass 18 and 19 , 1956 .