Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 292–297 | Cite as

Successor states in a four-state ambiguous figure

Brief Reports

Abstract

The satiation theory of ambiguous figures holds that interpretation shifts are caused by fatigue of neural arrangements responsible for the prevailing interpretation. A four-state multistable figure is introduced, in which two depicted cubes can be seen as connected or unconnected and as facing up or facing down. Observers viewed the figure for 4 min. When descriptive labels were used for the interpretations, shifts to interpretations that shared neither dimension were significantlymore frequent than shifts that conserved orientation or connection/disconnection. However, all types of transitions were equally likely when arbitrary letter codes were used, implying that the putatively fatigued assemblies can be dedicated to whole figures or to their characteristics,depending on observer expectations.

References

  1. Attneave, F. (1968). Triangles as ambiguous figures.American Journal of Psychology,81, 447–453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attneave, F. (1971, December). Multistability in perception.Scientific American,225, 63–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broerse, J., Li, R., &Ashton, R. (1994). Ambiguous pictorial depth cues and perceptions of nonrigid motion in the three-loop figure.Perception,23, 49–1062.Google Scholar
  4. Bucher, N. M., &Palmer, S. E. (1985). Effects of motion on perceived pointing of ambiguous triangles.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisher, G. H. (1967). Measuring ambiguity.American Journal of Psychology,80, 541–557.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, G. H. (1968). “Mother, father, and daughter”: A three-aspect ambiguous figure.American Journal of Psychology,81, 274–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Girgus, J. J., Rock, I., &Egatz, R. (1977). The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 550–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gomez, C., Argandoña, E. D., Solier, R. G., Angulo, J. C., &Vázquez, M. (1995). Timing and competition in networks representing ambiguous figures.Brain & Cognition,29, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hochberg, J. A. (1950). Figure-ground reversals as a function of visual satiation.Journal of Experimental Psychology,40, 682–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hochberg, J. A. (1998). Gestalt theory and its legacy. In J. Hochberg (Ed.),Perception and cognition at century’s end (pp. 253–306). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hochberg, J. A., &Peterson, M. A. (1987). Piecemeal organization and cognitive components in object perception: Perceptually coupled responses to moving objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hock, H. S., Schöner, G., &Voss, A. (1997). The influence of adaptation and stochastic fluctuations on spontaneous perceptual changes for bistable stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ]Köhler, W. (1940).Dynamics in psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  14. Kubovy, M. (1994). The perceptual organization of dot lattices.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., &Mondin, G. W. (1992). Prime time: Fatigue and set effects in the perception of reversible figures.Perception & Psychophysics,26 609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, S. M., Liu, G. B., Ngo, T. T., Hooper, G., Riek, S., Carson, R. G., &Pettigrew, J. D. (2000). Interhemispheric switching mediates perceptual rivalry.Current Biology,10, 383–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Palmer, S. E. (1980). What makes triangles point: Local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles.Cognitive Psychology,12, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palmer, S. E., &Bucher, N. M. (1981). Configural effects in perceived pointing of ambiguous triangles.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 88–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Taylor, T. L., &Klein, R. M. (2000). Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1639–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Warren, R. M., &Gregory, R. L. (1958). An auditory analogue of the visual reversible figure.American Journal of Psychology,71, 612–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seton Hall UniversitySouth Orange

Personalised recommendations