Image Ambiguity and Fluency

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 9, 2013, Pages

  Jakesch, Martina ^a   Leder, Helmut ^a   Forster, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMBIGUITY; ART; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; RESPONSE TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84883504221     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074084     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Gamboni D, (2002) Potential images. Ambiguity and indeterminancy in modern art. London: Reaction Books Ltd.
2. Krieger V, Mader R, (2010) Ambiguität in der Kunst. Typen und Funktionen eines ästhetischen Paradigmas. Ambiguity in the arts. Types and functions of an aesthetic paradigm]. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau Verlag.
3. Leder H, Belke B, Oeberst A, Augustin MD, (2004) A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br J Psychol 95: 489-508. doi:10.1348/0007126042369811. PubMed: 15527534.
4. Oppenheimer DM, (2008) The secret life of fluency. Trends Cogn Sci 12: 237-241. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014. PubMed: 18468944.
5. Oppenheimer DM, Frank MC, (2008) A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization. Cognition 106: 1178-1194. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.010. PubMed: 17618616.
6. Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P, (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8: 364-382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3. PubMed: 15582859.
7. Winkielman P, Cacioppo JT, (2001) Mind at ease puts a smile on the face. J Pers Soc Psychol 81: 989-1000. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.989. PubMed: 11761320.
8. Forster M, Leder H, Ansorge U, (2012) It felt fluent, and I liked it: Subjective feeling of fluency rather than objective fluency determines liking. Emotion (advance online publication). PubMed: 23088777.
9. Reber R, Winkielman P, Schwarz N, (1998) Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychol Sci 9: 45-48. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00008.
10. Long GM, Toppino TC, (2004) Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychol Bull 130: 748-768. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748. PubMed: 15367079.
11. Rust NC, Stocker AA, (2010) Ambiguity and invariance: Two fundamental challenges for visual processing. Curr Opin Neurobiol 20: 382-388. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.04.013. PubMed: 20545020.
12. Frühholz S, Godde B, Lewicki P, Herzmann C, Herrmann M, (2011) Face recognition under ambiguous visual stimulation: fMRI correlates of "encoding styles". Hum Brain Mapp 32: 1750-1761. doi:10.1002/hbm.21144. PubMed: 20886578.
13. Brascamp JW, Knapen THJ, Kanai R, Noest AJ, van Ee R, et al. (2008) Multi-timescale perceptual history resolves visual ambiguity. PLOS ONE 3: e1497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001497. PubMed: 18231584.
14. de Jong MC, Knapen T, van Ee R, (2012) Opposite influence of perceptual memory on initial and prolonged perception of sensory ambiguity. PLOS ONE 7: e30595. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030595. PubMed: 22295095.
15. Harrison SJ, Backus BT, (2010) Uninformative visual experience establishes long term perceptual bias. Vision Res 50: 1905-1911. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.06.013. PubMed: 20600232.
16. Green AM, Angelaki DE, (2010) Multisensory integration: Resolving sensory ambiguities to build novel representations. Curr Opin Neurobiol 20: 353-360. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.04.009. PubMed: 20471245.
17. Mamassian P, (2008) Ambiguities and conventions in the perception of visual art. Vision Res 48: 2143-2153. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.06.010. PubMed: 18619482.
18. Dahan D, Gaskell GM, (2007) The temporal dynamics of ambiguity resolution: Evidence from spoken-word recognition. J Mem Lang 57: 483-501. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.001. PubMed: 18071581.
19. Peleg O, Eviatar Z, (2009) Semantic asymmetries are modulated by phonological asymmetries: Evidence from the disambiguation of homophonic versus heterophonic homographs. Brain Cogn 70: 154-162. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.007. PubMed: 19249146.
20. Rodd J, Gaskell G, Marslen-Wilson W, (2002) Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. J Mem Lang 46: 245-266. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2810.
21. Neta M, Whalen PJ, (2010) The primacy of negative interpretations: When resolving the valence of ambiguous facial expressions. Psychol Sci 21: 901-907. doi:10.1177/0956797610373934. PubMed: 20534779.
22. Provine RR, Krosnowski KA, Brocato NW, (2009) Tearing: Breakthrough in human emotional signaling. Evol Psych 7: 52-56.
23. Sawyer JE, (1992) Goal and process carity- Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. J Appl Psychol 77: 130-142. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.130.
24. Labudda K, Woermann FG, Mertens M, Pohlmann-Eden B, Markowitsch HJ, et al. (2008) Neural correlates of decision making with explicit information about probabilities and incentives in elderly healthy subjects. Exp Brain Res 187: 641-650. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1332-x. PubMed: 18320179.
25. Hock M, Krohne HW, (2004) Coping with threat and memory for ambiguous information: Testing the repressive discontinuity hypothesis. Emotion 4: 65-86. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.65. PubMed: 15053727.
26. Blanchard DC, Griebel G, Pobbe R, Blanchard RJ, (2011) Risk assessment as an evolved threat detection and analysis process. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35: 991-998. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.016. PubMed: 21056591.
27. Epstein S, (1972) The nature of anxiety with emphasis upon its relationship to expectancy. In: Spielberger CD, eds. Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research. New York: Academic Press. pp. pp. 291-337.
28. Behrman DN, Bigoness WJ, Perreault WD Jr., (1981) Sources of job related ambiguity and their consequences upon salespersons' job satisfaction and performance. Manag Sci 27: 1246-1260. doi:10.1287/mnsc.27.11.1246.
29. Eys MA, Carron AV, (2001) Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small Group Res 32: 356-373. doi:10.1177/104649640103200305.
30. Pearce JL, (1981) Bringing some clarity to role ambiguity research. Acad Manag Rev 6: 665-674. doi:10.2307/257646.
31. Curley SP, Yates JF, Abrams RA, (1986) Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 38: 230-256. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90018-X.
32. Ellsberg D, (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q J Econ 75: 643-669. doi:10.2307/1884324.
33. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM, Epley N, Eyre RN, (2007) Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. J Exp Psychol Gen 136: 569-576. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569. PubMed: 17999571.
34. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM, (2009) Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 13: 219-235. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564. PubMed: 19638628.
35. Schwarz N, (2004) Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J Consum Psychol 14: 332-348. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2.
36. Reber R, Wurtz P, Zimmermann TD, (2004) Exploring "fringe" consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Conscious Cogn 13: 47-60. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00049-7. PubMed: 14990240.
37. Schwartz BL, Metcalfe J, (1992) Cue familiarity but not target retrievability enhances feeling-of-knowing judgments. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 18: 1074-1083. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1074. PubMed: 1402711.
38. Tversky A, Kahneman D, (1973) Availability- Heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5: 207-232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9.
39. Whittlesea BWA, (1993) Illusions of familiarity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19: 1235-1253. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235.
40. Whittlesea BWA, Williams LD, (1998) Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychol 98: 141-165. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00040-1.
41. Reber R, Schwarz N, (1999) Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Conscious Cogn 8: 338-342. doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0386. PubMed: 10487787.
42. McGlone MS, Tofighbakhsh J, (2000) Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science 11: 424-428.
43. Brennan SE, Williams M, (1995) The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. J Mem Lang 34: 383-398. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1017.
44. Klepousniotou E, Baum SR, (2007) Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. J Neurolinguistics 20: 1-24. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001.
45. Yap MJ, Tan SE, Pexman PM, Hargreaves IS, (2011) Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification. Psychon Bull Rev 18: 742-750. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0092-y. PubMed: 21494916.
46. Pexman PM, Lupker SJ, (1999) Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Can J Exp Psychol 53: 323-334. doi:10.1037/h0087320. PubMed: 10646204.
47. Jastrzembski JE, (1981) Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cogn Psychol 13: 278-305. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90011-6.
48. Gottlob LR, Goldinger SD, Stone GO, Van Orden GC, (1999) Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25: 561-574. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.2.561. PubMed: 10205867.
49. Hino Y, Lupker SJ, Pexman PM, (2002) Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 28: 686-713. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.686. PubMed: 12109762.
50. Piercey CD, Joordens S, (2000) Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks. Mem Cogn 28: 657-666. doi:10.3758/BF03201255. PubMed: 10946548.
51. Breton A, (1993) Die Manifeste des Surrealismus Henry R, eds. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
52. Ramachandran VS, Hirstein W, (1999) The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J Conscious Stud 6: 15-51.
53. Võ M, Henderson JM, (2009) Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception. J Vis 9: 1-15. doi:10.1167/9.13.1.
54. Loftus GR, Mackworth NH, (1978) Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 4: 565-572. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.565. PubMed: 722248.
55. Bonitz VS, Gordon RD, (2008) Attention to smoking-related and incongruous objects during scene viewing. Acta Psychol 129: 255-263. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08.006. PubMed: 18804752.
56. Becker MW, Pashler H, Lubin J, (2007) Object-intrinsic oddities draw early saccades. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33: 20-30. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.20. PubMed: 17311476.
57. Underwood G, Templeman E, Lamming L, Foulsham T, (2008) Is attention necessary for object identification? Evidence from eye movements during the inspection of real-world scenes. Conscious Cogn 17: 159-170. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2006.11.008. PubMed: 17222564.
58. Roura Sanchez (1995) Syntactic ambiguity as a device in British humour. Rev alicantina de Estud ingleses 8: 209-228.
59. Empson W, (1949) Seven types of ambiguity. London: Chatto and Windus.
60. Elkins J, (1993) On monstrously ambiguous paintings. Hist Theory 32: 227-247. doi:10.2307/2505524.
61. Elkins J, (1999) Why are our pictures puzzles? On the modern origins of pictorial complexity. New York: Routledge.
62. Krieger V, (2010) At war with the obvious Kulturen der Ambiguität. In: Krieger V, Mader R, eds. Ambiguität in der Kunst Typen und Funktionen eines ästhetischen Paradigmas. Köln. Weimar, Wien: Böhlau Verlag. pp. pp. 13-49.
63. Topolinski S, Likowski K, Weyers P, Strack F, (2009) The face of fluency: Semantic coherence automatically elicits a specific pattern of facial muscle reactions. Cogn Emotion 23: 260-271. doi:10.1080/02699930801994112.
64. Winkielman P, Halberstadt J, Fazendeiro T, Catty S, (2006) Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychol Sci 17: 799-806. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x. PubMed: 16984298.
65. Topolinski S, Strack F, (2009) The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning. J Exp Psychol Gen 138: 39-63. doi:10.1037/a0014678. PubMed: 19203169.
66. Bornstein RF, D'Agostino PR, (1992) Stimulus-recognition and the mere exposure effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 63: 545-552. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.545. PubMed: 1447685.
67. Gillebaart M, Förster J, Rotteveel M, (2012) Mere exposure revisited: The influence of growth versus security cues on evaluations of novel and familiar stimuli. J Exp Psychol Gen 141: 699-714. doi:10.1037/a0027612. PubMed: 22409663.
68. Csikszentmihalyi I, Csikszentmihalyi M, (1988) Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
69. Csikszentmihalyi M, (1990) Flow. The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.
70. Tooby J, Cosmides L, (2001) Does beauty build adapted minds? Toward an evolutionary theory of aesthetics, fiction and the arts. Substance: pp. 6-27.
71. Dissanayake E, (2007) What art is and what art does: an overview of contemporary evolutionary hypotheses. In: Martindale C, Locher P, Petrov V, eds. Evolutionary and Neurocognitive Approaches to Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Amityville, NY: Baywood. pp. pp. 1-14.
72. Halberstadt J, Hooton K, (2008) The affect disruption hypothesis: The effect of analytic thought on the fluency and appeal of art. Cogn Emotion 22: 964-976. doi:10.1080/02699930701597668.
73. VanRullen R, Thorpe SJ, (2001) The time course of visual processing: From early perception to decision-making. J Cogn Neurosci 13: 454-461. doi:10.1162/08989290152001880. PubMed: 11388919.
74. VanRullen R, Thorpe SJ, (2001) Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Ultra-rapid visual categorisation of natural and artifactual objects. Perception 30: 655-668. doi:10.1068/p3029. PubMed: 11464555.
75. Li FF, VanRullen R, Koch C, Perona P, (2002) Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 9596-9601. doi:10.1073/pnas.092277599. PubMed: 12077298.
76. Augustin MD, Leder H, Hutzler F, Carbon CC, (2008) Style follows content: On the microgenesis of art perception. Acta Psychol 128: 127-138. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.11.006. PubMed: 18164689.
77. Fei-Fei L, Iyer A, Koch C, Perona P, (2007) What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene? J Vis 7: 1-29. doi:10.1167/7.6.1.
78. Biederman I, Teitelbaum RC, Mezzanotte RJ, (1983) Scene perception: A failure to find a benefit from prior expectancy or familiarity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 9: 411-429. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.9.3.411. PubMed: 6225831.
79. Potter MC, (1976) Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 2: 509-522. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.509. PubMed: 1003124.
80. Thorpe S, Fize D, Marlot C, (1996) Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381: 520-522. doi:10.1038/381520a0. PubMed: 8632824.
81. Silvia PJ, (2005) Emotional Responses to Art: From Collation and Arousal to Cognition and Emotion. Rev Gen Psychol 9(4):: 342-357. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.342.
82. Silvia PJ, (2005) What is interesting?- Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion 5: 89-102. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.89. PubMed: 15755222.
83. Silvia PJ, (2008) Interest- The curious emotion. Curr Directions Psychol Sci 17: 57-60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00548.x.
84. Silvia PJ, (2009) Looking Past Pleasure. Anger: Confusion, Disgust, Pride, Surprise, and Other Unusual Aesthetic Emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, & the Arts 3: 48-51.
85. Silvia PJ, Henson RA, Templin JL, (2009) Are the sources of interest the same for everyone? Using multilevel mixture models to explore individual differences in appraisal structures. Cogn Emotion 23: 1389-1406. doi:10.1080/02699930902850528.
86. Turner SA Jr., Silvia PJ, (2006) Must Interesting Things be Pleasant? A Test of Competing Appraisal Structures. Emotion 6: 670-674. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.4.670. PubMed: 17144758.
87. Jakesch M, Leder H, (2009) Finding meaning in art: Preferred levels of ambiguity in art appreciation. Q J Exp Psychol 62: 2105-2112. doi:10.1080/17470210903038974. PubMed: 19565431.
88. Nicki RM, Forestell P, Short P, (1979) Uncertainty and preference for ambiguous figures, impossible figures and the drawings of Escher, Mc. Scand J Psychol 20: 277-281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1979.tb00709.x.
89. Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A, (2002) E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
90. Allison T, Puce A, Spencer DD, McCarthy G, (1999) Electrophysiological studies of human face perception. I: Potentials generated in occipitotemporal cortex by face and non-face stimuli. Cereb Cortex 9: 415-430. doi:10.1093/cercor/9.5.415. PubMed: 10450888.
91. Mouchetant-Rostaing Y, Giard M-H, Bentin S, Aguera P-E, Pernier J, (2000) Neurophysiological correlates of face gender processing in humans. Eur J Neurosci 12: 303-310. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2000.00888.x. PubMed: 10651885.
92. Schendan HE, Ganis G, Kutas M, (1998) Neurophysiological evidence for visual perceptual categorization of words and faces within 150 ms. Psychophysiology 35: 240-251. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3530240. PubMed: 9564744.
93. Green DM, Swets JA, (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
94. Macmillan NA, Kaplan HL, (1985) Detection theory analysis of group data- Estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychol Bull 98: 185-199. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.1.185. PubMed: 4034817.
95. Stanislaw H, Todorov N, (1999) Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behav Res Methods 31: 137-149. doi:10.3758/BF03207704. PubMed: 10495845.
96. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD, (2005) Detection theory: A user's guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
97. Võ M, Henderson JM, (2011) Object-scene inconsistencies do not capture gaze: evidence from the flash-preview moving-window paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 73: 1742-1753.
98. Bornstein RF, (1989) Exposure and affect- Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychol Bull 106: 265-289. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265.
99. Oppenheimer DM, (2004) Spontaneous Discounting of Availability in Frequency Judgment Tasks. Psychol Sci 15: 100-105. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502005.x. PubMed: 14738516.
100. Brodzinsky DM, Feuer V, Owens J, (1977) Detection of linguistic ambiguity by reflective, impulsive, fast/accurate, and slow/inaccurate children. J Educ Psychol 69: 237-243. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.69.3.237.
101. Martindale C, Moore K, Borkum J, (1990) Aesthetic preference- Anomalous findings for Berlyne psychobiological theory. Am J Psychol 103: 53-80. doi:10.2307/1423259.
102. Zajonc RB, (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9: 1-27. doi:10.1037/h0025848. PubMed: 5667435.
103. Zeki S, (2004) The neurology of ambiguity. Conscious Cogn 13: 173-196. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2003.10.003. PubMed: 14990252.
104. Zeki S, (1999) Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
105. Maffei L, Fiorentini A, (1995) Arte e Cervello. [Art and Brain]. Bologna: Zanichelli.
106. Dyson B, (2011) The advantage of ambiguity? Enhanced neural responses to multi-stable percepts correlate with the degree of perceived instability. Front Hum Neurosci 5: 1-12. PubMed: 21283556.