Four studies are reported which demonstrate that indirectly, loosely related information, otherwise known as conceptual set, modulates object identification. Studies 1A and 1B demonstrate the impact of indirect, nonspecific, non-perceptual, conceptual primes on the interpretation of ambiguous visual figures. Study 2 demonstrates that indirect, conceptual information (category of farm animals) biases identification without requiring the activation of direct perceptual information (here the image of a horse). Study 3 uses a non-linguistic dependent measure to address the alternative explanation that language and not perception mediates the relationship between incidental conceptual prime and biased object identification. These results suggest that conceptual set constrains object identification.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportA, 1989“Visual attention”, in Visual Attention Ed. PosnerM I (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 631–682
2.
BarMUllmanS, 1996“Spatial context in recognition”Perception25343–352
3.
BarghJ AChartrandT L, 2000“The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research”, in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology Eds ReisH TJuddC M (New York: Cambridge University Press) pp. …–…
BoringE G, 1930“A new ambiguous figure”American Journal of Psychology42444
8.
BoyceS JPollatsekA, 1992“Identification of objects in scenes: The role of scene background in object naming”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition18531–543
9.
BoyceS JPollatsekARaynerK, 1989“Effects of background information on object identification”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance15556–566
10.
BruggerPBruggerS, 1993“The Easter bunny in October: Is it disguised as a duck?”Perceptual and Motor Skills76577–578
BrunerJ SGoodmanC C, 1947“Value and need as organizing factors in perception”Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology4233–44
13.
BugelskiB RAlampayD A, 1961“The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets”Canadian Journal of Psychology15205–211
14.
CrandallS Jde LissovoyV, 1977“Perceptual set in preschool children”Journal of Genetic Psychology131327–328
15.
DunningD, 2001“On the motives underlying social cognition”, in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychologyvolume 1 Intraindividual Processes (New York: Blackwell) pp 348–374
16.
EdelmanS, 1994“Representations without reconstruction”CVGIP: Image Understanding6092–94
17.
EdelmanS, 1998“No reconstruction, no impenetrability (at least not much): A commentary on Is vision continuous with cognition”Behavioral and Brain Sciences22376
18.
EpsteinWRockI, 1960“Perceptual set as an artifact of recency”American Journal of Psychology73314–328
19.
ErdelyiM H, 1974“A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance”Psychological Review811–25
20.
FisherG H, 1967“Perception of ambiguous stimulus materials”Perception & Psychophysics2421–422
21.
GilbertD T, 1998“Ordinary personology”, in Handbook of Social Psychologyvolume 2, Eds GilbertD TFiskeSLindzeyG (New York: McGraw-Hill) pp 89–150
22.
IshikaneH, 2003“Neural responses in the visual system and selective attention”Japanese Psychological Review46357–370
23.
JamesW, 1890The Principles of Psychology (Mineola, NY: Dover)
24.
JohnstonLArdenKMacraeC NGraceR C, 2003“The need for speed: The menstrual cycle and person construal”Social Cognition2189–100
25.
JonesE E, 1985“Major developments in social psychology during the past five decades”, in The Handbook of Social Psychology3rd edition, volume 1, Eds LindzeyGAronsonE (New York: Random House) pp 47–108
26.
KosslynS MKoenigO, 1992Wet Mind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience (New York: Free Press)
27.
KosslynS M, 2003“Mental imagery: against the nihilistic hypothesis”Trends in Cognitive Sciences7109–111
28.
LeeperR, 1935“A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning—The development of sensory organization”Journal of Genetic Psychology4641–75
29.
LongG MOlszweskiA D, 1999“To reverse or not to reverse: When is an ambiguous figure not ambiguous?”American Journal of Psychology11241–71
30.
LongG MToppinoT C, 2004“Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures”Psychological Bulletin130748–768
31.
McCurdyH G, 1956“Coin perception studies and the concept of schemata”Psychological Review63160–168
32.
MacraeC NAlnwickK AMilneA BSchloerscheidtA M, 2002“Person perception across the menstrual cycle: Hormonal influences on social-cognitive functioning”Psychological Science13532–536
33.
MengMTongF, 2004“Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures”Journal of Vision4539 –
34.
MichelonPKoenigO, 2002“On the relationship between visual imagery and visual perception: Evidence from priming studies”European Journal of Cognitive Psychology14161–184
35.
MillerJ, 1987“Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters”Perception & Psychophysics41419–434
36.
NiedenthalP MBrauerMRobinLInnes-KerA H, 2002“Adult attachment and the perception of facial expression of emotion”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82419–433
37.
NisbettR ERossL D, 1980Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
38.
PalmeriT JBlalockC, 2000“The role of background knowledge in speeded perceptual categorization”Cognition77B45–B57
39.
PelliDPalomaresMMajajN J, 2004“Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection”Journal of Vision41136–1169
40.
PylyshynZ, 1998“Visual indexes in spatial vision imagery”, in Visual Attention Ed. WrightR (London: Oxford University Press) pp 215–231
41.
RockI, 1975An Introduction to Perception (New York: Macmillan)
42.
SeckelA, 2002The Great Book of Optical Illusions (Toronto: Firefly Books)
43.
SpiveyMGengJ J, 2001“Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects”Psychological Research65235–241
44.
ToppinoT, 2003“Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control”Perception & Psychophysics651285–1295
45.
YantisS, 1996“Attentional capture in vision”, in Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention Eds KramerA FColesM GLoganG D (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association) pp 45–45
