This study investigated the relationships between personality and creativity in the perception of two different ambiguous visual illusions. Previous research has suggested that Industriousness and Openness/Intellect (as measured by the Big Five Aspects Scale) are both associated with individual differences in perceptual switching rates for binocular rivalry stimuli. Here, we examined whether these relationships generalise to the Necker Cube and the Spinning Dancer illusions. In the experimental phase of this study, participants viewed these ambiguous figures under both static and dynamic, as well as free-view and fixation, conditions. As predicted, perceptual switching rates were higher: (a) for the static Necker Cube than the Spinning Dancer, and (b) in free-view compared with fixation conditions. In the second phase of the study, personality type and divergent thinking were measured using the Big Five Aspects Scale and the Alternate Uses Task, respectively. Higher creativity/divergent thinking (as measured by the Alternate Uses Task) was found to predict greater switching rates for the static Necker Cube (but not the Spinning Dancer) under both free-view and fixation conditions. These findings suggest that there are differences in the perceptual processing of creative individuals.
AntinoriA.CarterO. L.SmillieL. D. (2017).
Seeing it both ways: Openness to experience and binocular rivalry suppression. Journal of Research in Personality,
68, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.03.005
2.
AntinoriA.SmillieL. D.CarterO. L. (2017).
Personality measures link slower binocular rivalry switch rates to higher levels of self-discipline. Frontiers in Psychology,
7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02008
3.
ArdenR.ChavezR. S.GraziopleneR.JungR. E. (2010).
Neuroimaging creativity: A psychometric view. Behavioural Brain Research,
214, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.015
4.
AtmanspacherH.FachW. (2005).
Acategoriality as mental instability. Journal of Mind Behaviour,
26, 161–186.
5.
BeatyR. E.BenedekM.SilviaP. J.SchacterD. L. (2016).
Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
20, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004
6.
BergumB. O.BergumJ. E. (1979).
Creativity, perceptual stability, and self-perception. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
14, 61–63.
7.
BergumJ. E.BergumB. O. (1979).
Self-perceived creativity and ambiguous figure reversal rates. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
14, 373–374.
8.
BernalB.GuillenM.MarquezJ. C. (2014).
The spinning dancer illusion and spontaneous brain fluctuations: An fMRI study. Neurocase,
20, 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2013.826692
9.
Best, C., Bullet, S., Porter, F., Doherty, M. (2015). The Relationship Between Subthreshold Autistic Traits, Ambiguous Figure Perception and Divergent Thinking. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 45, 4064–4073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2518-2.
10.
BootN.BaasM.MühlfeldE.de DreuC. K. W.van GaalS. (2017).
Widespread neural oscillations in the delta band dissociate rule convergence from rule divergence during creative idea generation. Neuropsychologia,
104, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.07.033
11.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial vision, 10, 433--436.
12.
BrascampJ. W.BeckerM. W.HambrickD. Z. (2018).
Revisiting individual differences in the time course of binocular rivalry. Journal of Vision,
18, 3. https://doi.org/10.1167/18.7.3
13.
CaoT.WangL.SunZ.EngelS. A.HeS. (2018).
The independent and shared mechanisms of intrinsic brain dynamics: Insights from bistable perception. Frontiers in Psychology,
9, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00589
14.
CarsonS. H.PetersonJ. B.HigginsD. M. (2003).
Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499
15.
ChamberlainR.SwinnenL.HeerenS.WagemansJ. (2018).
Perceptual flexibility is coupled with reduced executive inhibition in students of the visual arts. British Journal of Psychology,
109, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12253
16.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880--896.
17.
DietrichA. (2004).
The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
11, 1011–1026. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196731
18.
DietrichA. (2019).
Where in the brain is creativity: A brief account of a wild-goose chase. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences,
27, 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.001
EinhauserW.MartinK. A. C.KonigP. (2004).
Are switches in perception of the Necker cube related to eye position?European Journal of Neuroscience,
20, 2811–2818.
21.
EinhauserW.StoutJ.KochC.CarterO. (2008).
Pupil dilation reflects perceptual selection and predicts subsequent stability in perceptual rivalry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
105, 1704–1709.
22.
FinkA.WeberB.KoschutnigK.BenedekM.ReishoferG.EbnerF., Papousek, I., Weiss, E. M.et al. (2013).
Creativity and schizotypy from the neuroscience perspective. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience,
14, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0210-6
23.
Fraley, R. C., & Marks, M. J. (2007). The null hypothesis significance testing debate and its implications for personality research. Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology, 149--169.
24.
FrederiksenN. O.GuilfordJ. P. (1934).
Personality traits and fluctuations of the outline cube. American Journal of Psychology,
46, 470–474.
25.
FreybergJ.RobertsonC. E.Baron-CohenS. (2015).
Reduced perceptual exclusivity during object and grating rivalry in autism. Journal of Vision,
15, 11. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.13.11
26.
Friis-OlivariusM.HulmeO. J.SkovM.RamsøyT. Z.SiebnerH. R. (2017).
Imaging the creative unconscious: Reflexive neural responses to objects in the visual and parahippocampal region predicts state and trait creativity. Scientific Reports,
7, 14420. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14729-7
27.
GaleA. G.FindlayJ. M. (1983). Eye movement patterns in viewing ambiguous figures. In GronerR.MenzC.FischerD. F., et al. (Eds.), Eye movements and psychological functions: International views (pp. 145–168).
Erlbaum.
28.
GençE. (2011).
Callosal connections of primary visual cortex predict the spatial spreading of binocular rivalry across the visual hemifields. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00161
29.
GhediniF.CorporationS. (2011). The illusion of ambiguity: From bistable perception to anthropomorphism [Thesis for Ph.D.]. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3276.3763
30.
Gilaie-DotanS.SayginA. P.LorenziL. J.EganR.ReesG.BehrmannM. (2013).
The role of human ventral visual cortex in motion perception. Brain,
136, 2784–2798. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt214
31.
HashimotoT.Minagawa-KawaiY.KojimaS. (2006).
Motion illusion activates the visual motion area of the brain: A near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) study. Brain Research,
1077, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.050
32.
HeenanA.TrojeN. F. (2014).
Both physical exercise and progressive muscle relaxation reduce the facing-the-viewer bias in biological motion perception. PLoS One,
9, e99902.
33.
HeenanA.TrojeN. F. (2015).
The relationship between social anxiety and the perception of depth-ambiguous biological motion stimuli is mediated by inhibitory ability. Acta Psychologica,
157, 93–100.
JaukE.NeubauerA. C.DunstB.FinkA.BenedekM. (2015).
Gray matter correlates of creative potential: A latent variable voxel-based morphometry study. NeuroImage,
111, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.002
36.
KanaiR.BahramiB.ReesG. (2010).
Human parietal cortex structure predicts individual differences in perceptual rivalry. Current Biology,
20, 1626–1630. https://doi.org/10.101nec6/j.cub.2010.07.027
37.
Kanai, R., Moradi, F., Shimojo, S., & Verstraten, F. A. (2005). Perceptual alternation induced by visual transients. Perception, 34, 803--822.
38.
KerstenD.YuilleA. (2003).
Bayesian models of object perception. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,
13, 150–158.
39.
KlintmanH. (1984).
Original thinking and ambiguous figure reversal rates. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
22, 129–131. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333782
40.
KornmeierJ.BachM. (2004).
Early neural activity in Necker-cube reversal: Evidence for low-level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. Psychophysiology,
41, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8986.2003.00126.x
41.
KornmeierJ.BachM. (2012).
Ambiguous figures—What happens in the brain when perception changes but not the stimulus. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
6, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00051
42.
KornmeierJ.HeinC. M.BachM. (2009).
Multistable perception: When bottom-up and top-down coincide. Brain and Cognition,
69, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.06.005
43.
KornmeierJ.WörnerR.RiedelA.Tebartz van ElstL. (2017).
A different view on the Necker cube—Differences in multistable perception dynamics between Asperger and non-Asperger observers. PLoS One,
12, e0189197.
LeopoldD. A.LogothetisN. K. (1999).
Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
3, 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01332-7
46.
LiJ.ZhangD.LiangA.LiangB.WangZ.CaiY. (2017). High transition frequencies of dynamic functional connectivity states in the creative brain (pp. 1–12). Nature Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46072
47.
LiW.LiX.HuangL.KongX.YangW.WeiD., . . . LiuJ. (2015).
Brain structure links trait creativity to openness to experience. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
10, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu041
48.
LiaciE.FischerA.AtmanspacherH.HeinrichsM.Tebartz van ElstL.KornmeierJ. (2018).
Positive and negative hysteresis effects for the perception of geometric and emotional ambiguities. PLoS One,
13, 181--205.
49.
LiuC. H.TzengO. J. L.HungD. L.TsengP.JuanC. H. (2012).
Investigation of bistable perception with the “silhouette spinner”: Sit still, spin the dancer with your will. Vision Research,
60, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.03.005
50.
LongG. M.ToppinoT. C. (2004).
Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin,
130, 748–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748
51.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1--10.
52.
MednickS. (1962).
The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review,
69, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
53.
NagamineM.YoshinoA.YamazakiM.ObaraM.SatoS.IchiTakahashiY., . . . OmuraS. (2007).
Accelerated binocular rivalry with anxious personality. Physiology and Behavior,
91, 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.016
54.
NakataniH.Van LeeuwenC. (2005).
Individual differences in perceptual switching rates: The role of occipital alpha and frontal theta band activity. Biological Cybernetics,
93, 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-005-0011-2
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial vision, 10, 437--442.
57.
PettigrewJ. D.MillerS. M. (1998).
A ‘sticky’ interhemispheric switch in bipolar disorder?Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences,
265, 2141–2148.
58.
PhillipsonO. T.HarrisJ. P. (1984).
Effects of chlorpromazine and promazine on the perception of some multi-stable visual figures. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A,
36, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748408402160
59.
RadelR.DavrancheK.FournierM.DietrichA. (2015).
The role of (dis)inhibition in creativity: Decreased inhibition improves idea generation. Cognition,
134, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.001
60.
RockI.GopnikA.HallS. (1994).
Do young children reverse ambiguous figures?Perception,
23, 635–644.
SchoutenB.TrojeN. F.BrooksA.Van Der ZwanR.VerfaillieK. (2010).
The facing bias in biological motion perception: Effects of stimulus gender and observer sex. attention, perception. Psychophysics,
72, 1256–1260.
65.
ScocchiaL.ValsecchiM.TrieschJ. (2014).
Top-down influences on ambiguous perception: The role of stable and transient states of the observer. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,
8(December), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00979
66.
SongC.SchwarzkopfD. S.LuttiA.LiB.KanaiR.ReesG. (2013).
Effective connectivity within human primary visual cortex predicts interindividual diversity in illusory perception. Journal of Neuroscience,
33, 18781–18791. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4201-12.2013
StrüberD.StadlerM. (1999).
Differences in top-down influences on the reversal rate of different categories of reversible figures. Perception,
28, 1185–1196. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2973
69.
SuzukiS.PetersonM. A. (2000).
Multiplicative effects of intention on the perception of bistable apparent motion. Psychological Science,
11, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00242
TakeuchiH.TakiY.SassaY.HashizumeH.SekiguchiA.FukushimaA.KawashimaR. (2010).
White matter structures associated with creativity: Evidence from diffusion tensor imaging. NeuroImage,
51, 11–18.
72.
ToppinoT. C. (2003).
Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception & Psychophysics,
65, 1285–1295. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194852
73.
TorranceE. P. (1987).
Future career image as a predictor of creative achievement in a 22-year longitudinal study. Psychological Reports,
60, 574. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.2.574
74.
TrojeN. F.McAdamM. (2010).
The viewing-from-above bias and the silhouette illusion. i-Perception,
1, 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0408
75.
TrojeN. F.WesthoffC. (2006).
The inversion effect in biological motion perception: Evidence for a “life detector”?Current Biology,
16, 821–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.022
76.
Van DamL. C.van EeR. (2006).
The role of saccades in exerting voluntary control in perceptual and binocular rivalry. Vision Research,
46, 787–799.
77.
Van LoonA. M.KnapenT.ScholteH. S.St. John-SaaltinkE.DonnerT. H.LammeV. A. F. (2013).
GABA shapes the dynamics of bistable perception. Current Biology,
23, 823–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.067
78.
WalcherS.KörnerC.BenedekM. (2017).
Looking for ideas: Eye behavior during goal-directed internally focused cognition. Consciousness and Cognition,
53, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.06.009
79.
WallaceB.KnightT. A.GarrettJ. B. (1976).
Hypnotic susceptibility and frequency reports to illusory stimuli. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
85, 558–563.
80.
WangM.ArteagaD.HeB. J. (2013).
Brain mechanisms for simple perception and bistable perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
110, E3350–E3359. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221945110
ZabelinaD. L.ColzatoL.BeemanM.HommelB. (2016).
Dopamine and the creative mind: Individual differences in creativity are predicted by interactions between dopamine genes DAT and COMT. PLoS One,
11, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146768
83.
ZhangX.XuQ.JiangY.WangY. (2017).
The interaction of perceptual biases in bistable perception. Scientific Reports,
7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42018
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
