Chapter 10 :

Visual Imagery
 What is Imagery?
Visual imagery: “ seeing” in the absence of a visual
stimulus.
Mental imagery: experience a sensory impression in
the absence of sensory input.

Visual Imagery is Useful

Provides a way of thinking that adds another
dimension to purely verbal
 Early Ideas about
imagery
Wundt proposed that images were one of the three
basic elements of consciousness, along with
sensations and feelings.
He also proposed that because images accompany
thought, studying images was a way of studying
thinking. This idea of a link between imagery and
thinking gave rise to the imageless thought
debate, with some psychologists taking up
Aristotle’s idea that “thought is impossible without
an image,” and others contending that thinking can
occur without images.
 Early Ideas about
imagery
Francis Galton’s findings supported the latter,
showing people could think without forming visual
images. However, behaviorists like John Watson
dismissed imagery as unscientific, sidelining its
study from the 1920s to the 1950s, until cognitive
psychology revived interest in the 1950s.
Imagery and the cognitive
Revolution
One of the keys to the success of this “revolution” was that cognitive
psychologists developed ways to study behavior to understand how the mind
works.
Paivio proposed the conceptual peg hypothesis. According to this hypothesis,
concrete nouns that create images like boat or tree are easier to remember
than abstract nouns like truth or justice. He explained this which suggests that
concrete nouns create mental images that make it easier to link them to other
words
Alan Paivio (1963)

contributed to memory research by demonstrating

that concrete nouns (e.g., truck, tree) are easier to
remember than abstract nouns (e.g., truth, justice).
Concrete nouns are easier to remember because
they can be visually images, whereas abstract nouns
lack such imagery.
Paivio used the paired-associate learning technique
to study memory
Roger Shepard and J. Metzler (1971)
inferred cognitive processes by using
mental chronometry, determining the
amount of time needed to carry out
various cognitive tasks.
In Shepard and Metzler’s experiment,
participants saw pictures like the ones in
Figure 10.1.
Participants were shown pairs of pictures and had to decide whether the
images depicted the same object or different objects as quickly as possible.
The study found that the time to make a decision was directly related to the
angular difference between the two views of the objects.
This result was interpreted as showing that participants were mentally
rotating one of the views to see whether it matched the other one. What was
important about this experiment was that it was one of the first to apply
quantitative methods to the study of imagery and to suggest that imagery
and perception may share the same mechanisms. (References to
“mechanisms” include both mental mechanisms, such as ways of
manipulating perceptual and mental images in the mind, and brain
mechanisms, such as which structures are involved in creating perceptual
and mental images.)
Imagery and Perception: Do They
Share the Same Mechanisms?
Imagery and perception may share similar mechanisms
because both involve spatial representations of stimuli.
While mental images are less vivid and shorter-lasting
than perceptions, they still follow the same spatial
layout. This is supported by studies, such as Shepard and
Metzler's research on spatial correspondence, and
Stephen Kosslyn's mental scanning experiments, where
participants mentally create and scan images
KOSSlYN’S MENTAL SCANNING
EXPERIMENTS
Stephen Kosslyn conducted extensive research on
imagery, proposing theories that draw parallels
between imagery and perception. In Kosslyn's 1973
experiment, participants memorized an object
(e.g., a boat) and mentally focused on one part
(e.g., the anchor), then searched for another part
(e.g., the motor).
Kosslyn hypothesized that if imagery is spatial, it
would take longer to find parts farther from the
initial focus.
The results supported this, showing longer reaction
times for parts farther away, suggesting that
imagery involves spatial representation. However,
G. Lea (1975) proposed an alternative explanation,
suggesting distractions might account for longer
reaction times.
 KOSSlYN’S MENTAL SCANNING
EXPERIMENTS
To test this, Kosslyn (1978) conducted another experiment using a
map of an island with seven locations, showing that reaction time
increased with greater distances between locations, further
supporting the spatial nature of imagery.
Despite Kosslyn’s findings, Zenon Pylyshyn (1973) proposed an
alternative explanation, sparking the "imagery debate" about
whether imagery relies on spatial mechanisms.
THE IMAGERY DEBATE: IS IMAGERY
SPATIAL OR PROPOSITIONAL?
The imagery debate explores whether mental
imagery is based on spatial or propositional
representations.
Kosslyn's spatial theory: Imagery involves spatial
representation, where different parts of an
image correspond to specific locations in space.
Pylyshyn's propositional theory: Imagery is not
truly spatial but based on abstract symbolic
representations (e.g., statements or equations).
Pylyshyn argued that the spatial experience of
imagery is an epiphenomenon—a byproduct of
cognitive processes, not part of the mechanism
itself.
THE IMAGERY DEBATE: IS IMAGERY
SPATIAL OR PROPOSITIONAL?
He proposed the tacit knowledge explanation,
suggesting participants unconsciously use real-
world knowledge to simulate scanning effects in
Kosslyn’s experiments.
Finke & Pinker (1982) challenged the tacit
knowledge explanation with an experiment using
dots and arrows, showing that scanning time
increased with distance, even without prior
memorization.
Pylyshyn's criticisms sparked further research,
but most evidence supports spatial
representation and its connection to perception.
COMPARING IMAGERY AND PERCEPTION
Size in the Visual Field: Kosslyn (1978) studied how imagery is influenced by object
size in the visual field.
Imagery and Detail Perception: When participants imagined animals of different
sizes, they answered questions about the rabbit faster when it appeared larger in
their mental image.
Mental Walk Task: Participants imagined walking toward an animal and reported
when it "overflowed" their visual field. Smaller animals required closer proximity,
mimicking real perception.
Perky (1910) Experiment: Participants unknowingly mistook a dimly projected
image for their own mental image, showing interaction between imagery and
perception.
Farah (1985) Experiment: Participants imagined letters before detecting them on
a screen. Accuracy was higher when the imagined letter matched the target,
suggesting shared mechanisms between perception and imagery.
Conclusion: Imagery and perception interact and rely on similar cognitive
processes.
IS THERE A WAY TO RESOLVE THE IMAGERY
DEBATE?
Imagery Debate Continues: Despite evidence supporting the spatial
explanation, some scientists argue that we cannot fully rule out the
propositional explanation.
Tacit Knowledge Problem: Farah (1988) noted that people might unknowingly
use past experiences when performing imagery tasks, simulating perceptual
responses instead of truly "seeing" in their minds.
Example - Mental Walk Task: Participants might use their real-world
knowledge of animal sizes rather than actually experiencing spatial imagery.
Farah’s Solution: Instead of relying only on behavioral experiments,
researchers should study how the brain reacts to visual imagery.
Advances in Brain Research: By the 1980s, neuropsychology and
electrophysiology provided insights into imagery, and in the 1990s, brain
imaging further contributed to understanding the brain’s role in imagery.
 Imagery and the Brain
IMAGERY NEURONS IN THE BRAIN
Research suggests a strong but not perfect connection between
imagery and perception.
Brain response to imagery has been studied through physiological
experiments.
Kreiman et al. (2000) recorded single-neuron activity in epilepsy
patients with implanted electrodes.
They identified imagery neurons in the medial temporal lobe.
These neurons responded selectively to specific objects (e.g., a
baseball) but not others (e.g., a face).
The same neurons fired when the subject saw and imagined the
object.
This finding supports the idea that perception and mental imagery
share neural mechanisms.
 BRAIN IMAGING
Brain imaging studies (using PET & fMRI) measure brain activity
during visual imagery and perception.
LeBihan et al. (1993) found that both perception and imagery
activate the visual cortex.
Imagery-based questions (e.g., comparing tree and grass colors)
activate the visual cortex more than non-imagery questions.
Ganis et al. (2004) used fMRI to compare perception and imagery,
showing:
Strong overlap in brain activation, especially in the frontal lobe.
Differences in the back of the brain, where perception activated
areas more than imagery.
Amedi et al. (2005) found that during imagery, nonvisual areas
(hearing/touch) were deactivated to reduce interference.
Despite some differences, a strong overlap between perception
and imagery suggests they share neural mechanisms.
TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION

Imagery & Perception Debate – Some scientists argue that brain activity
during imagery might be just a byproduct (epiphenomenon) and not actually
responsible for creating mental images.
Kosslyn's Experiment (1999) – Used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to
temporarily disrupt brain activity in the visual cortex while participants
performed perception and imagery tasks.
Tasks:
- Perception task – Participants looked at striped patterns and compared their
lengths
- Imagery task – Participants imagined the stripes and made the same
comparisons.
Findings:
- TMS slowed down reaction times for both perception and imagery.
- This suggests that the visual cortex is actively involved in both seeing and
imagining.
Brain activity in the visual cortex plays a causal role in imagery, not just a side effect.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL CASE STUDIES
Studying brain damage helps us understand mental imagery by comparing how
damage affects both perception and imagery.
Removing Part of the Visual Cortex Decreases Image Size
- Patient M.G.S., who had part of her right occipital lobe removed to treat epilepsy,
performed a mental walk task before and after surgery. Before the operation, she
imagined a horse overflowing her visual field at 15 feet, but after the surgery, this
distance increased to 35 feet. This suggests that the visual cortex plays a crucial role in
mental imagery by affecting the size of the imagined field of view
Perceptual Problems Are Accompanied by Problems With Imagery
-Studies show that brain damage affecting perception also impacts mental
imagery. Patients who lose color vision cannot imagine colors, and those with parietal
lobe damage may develop unilateral neglect, ignoring one side of both their visual field
and mental images. A Milan patient with neglect only described objects on his right when
imagining familiar scenes. These findings suggest that perception and imagery share
brain mechanisms, though not always in a one-to-one manner
 NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL CASE STUDIES
Dissociations Between Imagery and Perception
- Dissociations between perception and imagery show they rely on different brain
mechanisms. Some patients, like R.M., have normal perception but impaired imagery,
struggling with tasks requiring mental images. Others, like C.K., have impaired perception
but intact imagery, unable to recognize objects but able to draw them from memory.
These cases suggest that while perception and imagery share some brain structures,
they are not entirely dependent on the same processes.
Making Sense of the Neuropsychological Results
- Neuropsychological cases show both parallels and dissociations between
perception and imagery, creating a paradox. Some patients (R.M., Guariglia’s patient)
have normal perception but impaired imagery, while others (C.K.) have normal imagery
but impaired perception. Behrmann et al. (1994) suggest perception relies on both lower
and higher visual centers, involving bottom-up processing, while imagery is a top-down
process relying mainly on higher brain areas. This explains some cases but not all, such
as M.G.S., whose visual cortex damage affected both perception and imagery. It is likely
that further research will lead to modifications in the explanation shown in Figure 10.20,
or perhaps a new explanation altogether.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL CASE STUDIES
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE
IMAGERY DEBATE
Imagery & perception are closely related and share some
brain mechanisms.
Not all mechanisms are shared because:
fMRI studies show incomplete brain activation overlap.
Neuropsychological studies show cases where one is
impaired but not the other.
Imagery requires effort, while perception happens
automatically when we see something.
Perception is stable, but imagery is fragile and can
disappear without focus.
Mental Image
Manipulation Studies
Chalmers & Reisberg (1985):
- People couldn’t “flip” between different mental images of
ambiguous figures (e.g., rabbit-duck illusion).
Finke et al. (1989):
- Participants successfully combined and rotated letters
(e.g., D + J → umbrella).
Mast & Kosslyn (2002):
- People were better at mentally rotating images when given
extra information.
Final Conclusion
Imagery and perception are similar but not identical
—they share many features but also have key differences.

Using Imagery to Improve Memory

Imagery helps memory by creating strong connections between pieces
of information.
Experiment: People who imagined paired words (e.g., boat-tree)
remembered twice as many as those who just repeated them.
Organization boosts memory
—our brains naturally organize information, making it easier to recall.
A powerful method: Placing mental images at specific locations (like in
a familiar place) can enhance memory further.
PLACING IMAGES AT LOCATIONS
Method of loci - a method in which things to be remembered are
placed at different locations in a mental image of a spatial layout.

ASSOCIATING IMAGES WITH WORDS

Pegword technique - Uses imagery like the method of loci but
associates items with concrete words instead of locations.
Thank you
very much