Subjects heard descriptions of arrays of objects and responded when they could no longer imagine all the objects simultaneously. This limitation was an inverted-U function of presentation rate. Subjects visualized a maximum of 5.4 objects at a presentation rate of 2.9 sec./object. Females visualized significantly more objects than males. No systematic effects emerged for ratings of confidence of achieving wholistic visualization or confidence of the decision made that a limit had been reached, as a function of presentation rate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtwoodG.An experimental study of visual imagination and memory. Cognitive Psychology, 1971, 2, 290–299.
2.
ErnestC. H.PaivioA.Imagery ability in paired-associate and incidental learning. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 15, 181–182.
3.
ErnestC. H.PaivioA.Imagery and sex differences in incidental recall. British Journal of Psychology, 1971, 62, 67–72.
4.
KaufmanE. L.LordM. W.ReeseT. W.VolkmannJ.The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology, 1949, 62, 498–525.
MillerG. A.The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 1956, 63, 81–97. (b)
7.
MorrisP. E.GaleA.A correlational study of variables related to imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 38, 659–665.
8.
NeisserU.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton, 1967.
9.
PaivioA.Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
10.
SegalS. J.FusellaV.Influence of imaged pictures and sounds on the detection of visual and auditory signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83, 458–464.
