Priming effects with ambiguous figures

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 168-178

  Goolkasian, Paula ^a   Woodberry, Courtney ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; VISUAL ILLUSION;

ADOLESCENT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952192465     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.1.168     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. BALCETIS, E., & DALE, R. (2007). Conceptual set as a top-down constraint on visual object identification. Perception, 36, 581-595. doi:10.1068/p5678
2. BAR, M., & BlEDERMAN, I. (1998). Subliminal visual priming. Psychological Science, 9, 464-469. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00086
3. BORING, E. G. (1930). A new ambiguous figure. American Journal of Psychology, 42, 444. doi:10.2307/1415447
4. BoTwiNicK, J. (1961). Husband and father-in-law: A new reversible figure. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 312-313. doi: 10.2307/1419424
5. BUGELSKI, B. R, & ALAMPAY, D. A. (1961). The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 15, 205-211.doi:10.1037/h0083443
6. CRAIK, F. I. M., & LOCKHART, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning A Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
7. CRAIK, F. I. M., & TULVINO, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
8. FARAH, M. J. (1989). Semantic and perceptual priming: How similar are the underlying mechanisms? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 188-194. doi: 10.1037/0096 -1523.15.1.188
9. FEIST, M. I., & GENTNER, D. (2007). Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes. Memory & Cognition, 35, 283-296.
10. GIRGUS, J. J., ROCK, I., Sc EGATZ, R. (1977). The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 550-556.
11. GOOLKASIAN, P. (1987). Ambiguous figures: Role of context and critical features. Journal of General Psychology, 114, 217-228.
12. GRTER, J. B. (1971). Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Com- puting formulas. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 424-429. doi: 10.1037/ h0031246
13. HOLUNGWORTH, A., & HENDERSON, J. M. (1998). Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 398-415.
14. INTRAUB, H., & NICKLOS, S. (1985). Levels of processing and picture memory: The physical superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition, 11, 284-298. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.2.284
15. LEEPER, R (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 46, 41-75.
16. LONG, G. M., & TOPHNO, T. C (2004). Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130,748-768. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748
17. MATSUKAWA, J., SNODGRASS, J. G., & DONIGER, G. M. (2005). Conceptual versus perceptual priming in incomplete picture identification. Journal of Psycholtnguistic Research, 34, 515-540. doi: 10.1007/ S10936-005-9162-9165
18. MUUJGAN, N. W., & PETERSON, D. (2008). Attention and implicit memory in the category-verification and lexical decision tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 662-679.doi:10.1037/0278- 7393.34.3.662
19. NECKER, L. A (1832). Observations on an optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid. Philosophical Magazine, 1, 329-337.
20. PETERSON, M. A. (1993). The ambiguity of mental images: Insights regarding the structure of shape memory and its function in creativity. In B. Roskos-Ewoldson, M. J. Intons-Peterson, & R F. Anderson (Eds.), Imagery, creativity, and discovery: A cognitive perspective (pp. 151-185). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
21. PETERSON, M. A., & GIBSON, B. S. (1994). Must figure-ground organization precede shape recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychological Science, 5, 253-259. doi:10.111 l/j.l467-9280.1994.tb00622jc
22. PETERSON, M. A., HARVEY, E. M., & WEIDENBACHER, H. J. (1991). Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground reversal: Which route counts? Journal of Expertmental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 17,1075-1089. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.4.1075
23. RAMPONI, C., RICHARDSON-KLAVEHN, A., & GARDINER, J. M. (2007). Component processes of conceptual priming and associative cued recall: The roles of preexisting representation and depth of processing. Journal of Expertmental Psychology: Learning Memory, & Cognition, 33, 843-862. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.843
24. ROCK, I., & MITCHENER, K. (1992). Further evidence of failure of reversal of ambiguous figures by uninformed subjects. Perception, 21, 39-45. doi:10.1068/p210039
25. RUBIN, E. (1958). Figure and ground. In D. C Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds. & Trans.), Readings in perception (pp. 35-101). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
26. TULVING, E, & SCHACTER, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247, 301-306. doi: 10.1126/science.2296719
27. ZWAAN, R. A., STANFIELD, R A., & YAXLEY, R R (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168-171. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00430