Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:54:38.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seeing and thinking: Foundational issues and empirical horizons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Chaz Firestone  and
Brian J. Scholl
Chaz Firestone
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8205. [email protected]@yale.edu
Brian J. Scholl
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8205. [email protected]@yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spectacularly varied responses to our target article raised big-picture questions about the nature of seeing and thinking, nitty-gritty experimental design details, and everything in between. We grapple with these issues, including the ready falsifiability of our view, neuroscientific theories that allow everything but demand nothing, cases where seeing and thinking conflict, mental imagery, the free press, an El Greco fallacy fallacy, hallucinogenic drugs, blue bananas, subatomic particles, Boeing 787s, and the racial identities of geometric shapes.

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e264
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. (2006) See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:612–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. (2010) Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science 21:147–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhalla, M. & Proffitt, D. R. (1999) Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25:1076–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. S. & Goodman, C. C. (1947) Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 42:33–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carandini, M. (2012) From circuits to behavior: A bridge too far? Nature Neuroscience 15:507–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrasco, M. (2011) Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research 51:1484–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, J. & Proctor, R. W. (2012) Influence of category identity on letter matching: Conceptual penetration of visual processing or response competition? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 74:716–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y.-C. & Scholl, B. J. (2014) Seeing and liking: Biased perception of ambiguous figures consistent with the “inward bias” in aesthetic preferences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 21:1444–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-C. & Scholl, B. J. (2016) The perception of history: Seeing causal history in static shapes induces illusory motion perception. Psychological Science 27:923–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, S. & Balcetis, E. (2013) Sources of resources: Bioenergetic and psychoenergetic resources influence distance perception. Social Cognition 31:721–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. J. (1997) Auditory grouping. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1(9):327–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deroy, O. (2013) Object-sensitivity versus cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Studies 162:87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieter, K. C., Hu, B., Knill, D. C., Blake, R. & Tadin, D. (2014) Kinesthesis can make an invisible hand visible. Psychological Science 25(1):66–75. doi:10.1177/0956797613497968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K. & Waymouth, S. (2009) Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16:964–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durgin, F. H., DeWald, D., Lechich, S., Li, Z. & Ontiveros, Z. (2011a) Action and motivation: Measuring perception or strategies? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18(6):1077–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durgin, F. H., Klein, B., Spiegel, A., Strawser, C. J. & Williams, M. (2012) The social psychology of perception experiments: Hills, backpacks, glucose, and the problem of generalizability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38:1582–95.Google ScholarPubMed
Emberson, L. L. & Amso, D. (2012) Learning to sample: Eye tracking and fMRI indices of changes in object perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24:2030–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2014a) “Please tap the shape, anywhere you like”: Shape skeletons in human vision revealed by an exceedingly simple measure. Psychological Science 25(2):377–86. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613507584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2014b) “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science 25:38–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2015a) Can you experience top-down effects on perception? The case of race categories and perceived lightness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22:694–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2015b) Enhanced visual awareness for morality and pajamas? Perception vs. memory in ‘top-down’ effects. Cognition 136:409–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2015c). When do ratings implicate perception versus judgment?: The “overgeneralization test” for top-down effects. Visual Cognition 23(9–10):1217–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2016) “Moral perception” reflects neither morality nor perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20:75–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A. (1974) Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese 28:97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014) The moral pop-out effect: Enhanced perceptual awareness of morally relevant stimuli. Cognition 132:22–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. (2015) Moral perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19:631–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, T. & Scholl, B. J. (2011) Chasing vs. stalking: Interrupting the perception of animacy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37:669–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Gao, T., McCarthy, G. & Scholl, B. J. (2010) The wolfpack effect: Perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychological Science 21:1845–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garn, S. M., Leonard, W. R. & Hawthorne, V. M. (1986) Three limitations of the body mass index. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 44:996–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G. (2004) Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics 33:587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T., Olkkonen, M., Walter, S. & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2006) Memory modulates color appearance. Nature Neuroscience 9(11):1367–68. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/nn1794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Anglin, S. M., Stevens, S. T. & Duarte, J. L. (2016) Interpretations and methods: Towards a more effectively self-correcting social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66:116–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanizsa, G. (1985) Seeing and thinking. Acta Psychologica 59:23–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanizsa, G. & Gerbino, W. (1982) Amodal completion: Seeing or thinking? In: Organization and representation in perception, ed. Beck, J., pp. 167–90. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klemfuss, N., Prinzmetal, W. & Ivry, R. B. (2012) How does language change perception: A cautionary note. Frontiers in Psychology 3:Article 78. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kominsky, J. & Scholl, B. J. (2016) Retinotopic adaptation reveals multiple distinct categories of causal perception. Journal of Vision 16(12):333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, D. T. & Banaji, M. R. (2006) Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135:501–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, D. T., Takarae, Y., Miner, A. G. & Keil, F. (2001) Efficient visual search by category: Specifying the features that mark the difference between artifacts and animals in preattentive vision. Perception and Psychophysics 63:676–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, G. M. & Toppino, T. C. (2004) Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin 130:748–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G. (2012) Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology 3:Article 54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G. & Spivey, M. J. (2008) Perceptual processing is facilitated by ascribing meaning to novel stimuli. Current Biology 18:R410–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G., Thompson-Schill, S. L. & Swingley, D. (2010) Conceptual penetration of visual processing. Psychological Science 21(5):682–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupyan, G. & Ward, E. J. (2013) Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(35):14196–201. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1303312110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macpherson, F. (2012) Cognitive penetration of colour experience: Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(1):24–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Crawford, L. E. & Ahlvers, W. J. (2007) When “light” and “dark” thoughts become light and dark responses: Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion 7(2):366–76. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Most, S. B. (2013) Setting sights higher: Category-level attentional set modulates sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Research 77:139–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Most, S. B., Simons, D. J., Scholl, B. J., Jimenez, R., Clifford, E. & Chabris, C. F. (2001) How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Science 12(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E. R. & Simons, D. J. (2005b) What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review 112:217–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Most, S. B. & Wang, L. (2011) Dissociating spatial attention and awareness in emotion-induced blindness. Psychological Science 22:300–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (2000) Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:299–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orne, M. T. (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist 17:776–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. A. & Gibson, B. S. (1991) Directing spatial attention within an object: Altering the functional equivalence of shape descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17:170–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Pinna, B. & Brelstaff, G. J. (2000) A new visual illusion of relative motion. Vision Research 40:2091–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pylyshyn, Z. (1999) Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(3):341–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002) Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25:157–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B. & Carrell, T. D. (1981) Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science 212:947–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolfs, M., Dambacher, M. & Cavanagh, P. (2013) Visual adaptation of the perception of causality. Current Biology 23(3):250–54. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.12.017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, S., Zadra, J. R. & Proffitt, D. R. (2010) Direct evidence for the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception 39:464–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholl, B. J. (2007) Object persistence in philosophy and psychology. Mind and Language 22:563–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholl, B. J. & Gao, T. (2013) Perceiving animacy and intentionality: Visual processing or higher-level judgment? In: Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention, ed. Rutherford, M. D. & Kuhlmeier, V. A., pp. 197–230. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholl, B. J. & Nakayama, K. (2002) Causal capture: Contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychological Science 13:493–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y. & Shimojo, S. (2000) Illusions: What you see is what you hear. Nature 408:788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stefanucci, J. K. & Geuss, M. N. (2009) Big people, little world: The body influences size perception. Perception 38:1782–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor-Covill, G. A. H. & Eves, F. F. (2016) Carrying a biological “backpack”: Quasi-experimental effects of weight status and body fat change on perceived steepness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(3):331–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Toppino, T. C. (2003) Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception and Psychophysics 65:1285–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turk-Browne, N. B., Junge, J. A. & Scholl, B. J. (2005) The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134:552–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, E. J. & Scholl, B. J. (2015) Inattentional blindness reflects limitations on perception, not memory: Evidence from repeated failures of awareness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22:722–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, W. H. (1984) Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10:683–703.Google ScholarPubMed
Wesp, R., Cichello, P., Gracia, E. B. & Davis, K. (2004) Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size. Perception and Psychophysics 66:1261–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wesp, R. & Gasper, J. (2012) Is size misperception of targets simply justification for poor performance? Perception 41:994–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R. & Epstein, W. (2004) Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception 33:577–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt, J. K. & Sugovic, M. (2010) Performance and ease influence perceived speed. Perception 39(10):1341–53. doi:10.1068/P6699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witt, J. K. & Sugovic, M. (2013b) Response bias cannot explain action-specific effects: Evidence from compliant and non-compliant participants. Perception 42:138–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeimbekis, J. (2013) Color and cognitive penetrability. Philosophical Studies 165:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar