Earlier research has shown that subjects are slower to discover the alternative construal of ambiguous geometric figures if they are simultaneously engaged in distractor tasks. Results are reported which show that this effect slows reversals subsequent to the first reversal, and is therefore not merely slowing the discovery of the alternative construal. In addition, the magnitude of the distraction effect seems unchanged through the successive reversals. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for figural reversal and of their implications for the role of mental resources in perceiving.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DuncanJ, 1980“The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli”Psychological Review87272–300
2.
FodorJ, 1983The Modularity of Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
3.
GirgusJRockIEgatzR, 1977“The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures”Perception and Psychophysics22550–556
4.
GregoryR, 1970The Intelligent Eye (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson)
5.
Von HelmholtzH, 1909/1962Physiological Optics volume 3 (New York: Dover, 1962); English translation by J P C Southall for the Optical Society of America (1924) from the 3rd German edition ofHandbuch der physiologischen Optik (Hamburg: Voss, 1909)
6.
HochbergJ, 1970“Attention, organization and consciousness” in Attention: Contemporary Theory and Analysis Ed MostofskyD I (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts)
7.
HochbergJ1971“Perception: I. Color and shape” in Experimental Psychology Eds KlingJ WRiggsL A (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston)
8.
HochbergJBrooksV, 1960“The psychophysics of form: Reversible-perspective drawings of spatial objects”American Journal of Psychology73337–354
9.
HoltzmanJGazzanigaM, 1982“Dual task interactions due exclusively to limits in processing resources”Science2181325–1327
10.
KahnemanD, 1973Attention and Effort (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall)
11.
KohlerWWallachH, 1944“Figural aftereffects: An investigation of bivisual processes”Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society88269–357
12.
LeeperR, 1935“A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning—the field of sensory organization”Journal of Genetic Psychology4641–75
13.
MillerG, 1956“The magical number 7, plus or minus 2: Some limits on our capacity for processing information”Psychological Review6381–97
14.
NeisserU, 1976Cognition and Reality (San Francisco, CA: Freeman)
15.
NormanDBobrowD, 1975“On data-limited and resource-limited processes”Cognitive Psychology744–64
16.
PenroseLPenroseR, 1958“Impossible objects: A special type of visual illusion”British Journal of Psychology4931–33
17.
PylyshynZ, 1981“The imagery debate” in Imagery Ed. BlockN (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
18.
ReisbergD, 1983“General mental resources and perceptual judgments”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance9966–979
19.
RockI, 1983The Logic of Perception (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
20.
RockIGutmanD, 1981“The effect of inattention on form perception”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance7275–285
21.
RockISchauerRHalperF, 1976“Form perception without attention”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology28429–440
22.
TreismanAGeladeG, 1980“A feature-integration theory of attention”Cognitive Psychology1197–136
