Recognition thresholds for neutral and taboo words increased with a decrease in artificial pupil size for 3 Ss. Under a fully dilated condition without artificial pupils, there was a slight increase in recognition threshold. No differences were observed between neutral and taboo conditions. These results support the suggestion that pupil size may be a plausible mechanism in perceptual defense.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownW. P.Conceptions of perceptual defense. British Journal of Psychology, 1961, 35, vii-107, Monograph supplements.
2.
CampbellF. W.GregoryA. H.Effect of size of pupil on visual acuity. Nature, 1960, 187, 1121–1123.
3.
DixonN. F.Subliminal perception: The nature of a controversy.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
HessE. H.Pupillometrics. In GreenfieldN. S.SternbackR. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. pp. 491–531.
7.
HuttL. D.AndersonJ. P.The relationship between pupil size and recognition threshold. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9, 477–478.
8.
JanisseM. P.Pupil size and affect: A critical review of the literature since 1960. Canadian Psychologist, 1973, 14, 311–329.
9.
LeibowitzH.The effect of pupil size on visual acuity for photometrically equated test fields at various levels of luminance. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1952, 42, 416–422.
10.
LoewenfeldI. E.Comment on Hess' findings. Survey of Ophthalmology, 1966, 11, 291–294.
11.
LowensteinO.LoewenfeldI. E.The pupil. In DavsonH. (Ed.), The eye.New York: Academic Press, 1969. Vol. 3. pp. 255–337.
