Janella Hope B.
Umali
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
CHAPTER 7: Mental Images and Propositions
KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION
-the forms for what you know in your mind about things, ideas, events
in the outside world
MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGISTS
-would directly observe how each of use represents knowledge
-taking a series of snapshots of ongoing knowledge representations in
the human mind
-direct empirical methods are not available at present
RATIONALIST APPROACH
-we try to deduce logically how people represent knowledge
EPISTEMOLOGY
-the study of nature, origins, and limits of human knowledge
TWO KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES:
DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE
-facts (birth date)
PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE
-procedures that can be implemented (driving)
**Distinction: knowing that and knowing how
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
-researchers indirectly study knowledge representation because they
cannot look into people’s minds directly
-they observe how people handle various cognitive tasks that require
the manipulation of mentally represented knowledge
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES
-use one of two methods:
(1) They observe how the normal brain responds to various
cognitive tasks involving knowledge representation
(2) They observe the links between various deficits in knowledge
representation and associated pathologies in the brain
┌ Communicating Knowledge: Pictures versus Words
-Knowledge can be presented in different ways in your minds: it can
be stored as a mental picture or abstract propositions
SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION
-relationship between the word and what is represents is simply
arbitrary
-their use requires the application of rules
PICTURES
-aptly capture concrete and spatial information in a manner analogous
to whatever they represent
-convey all features simultaneously
-in general, any rules for creating or understanding pictures pertain to
the analogous relationship between the picture and what it
represents
-help ensure as much similarity as possible between the picture and
the object it represents
WORDS
-handily capture abstract and categorical information in a manner that
is symbolic of whatever the words represent
-usually convey information sequentially
┌ Pictures in Your Mind: Mental Imagery
IMAGERY
-mental representation of things that are not currently seen or sensed
by the sense organs (hearing, smell, taste)
MENTAL IMAGERY
-can represent things that you have never experienced
-may even represent things that do not exist outside the minds of the
person creating the image
-can help improve memory
**most research has focused on visual imagery
EXTREME VIEW OF IMAGERY
-all images of everything we ever sense may be stored as exact copies
of physical images
-realistically, to store every observed physical image in the brain
seems impossible (inadequate capacity)
Dual-Code Theory: Images an
┌ d Symbols
DUAL-CODE THEORY
-PAIVIO
-use both pictorial (image) and verbal codes for representing
information in our minds
-two codes organize information into knowledge that can be acted on,
stored somehow, and later retrieved for subsequent use
ANALOG CODES
-mental images
-resemble the objects they are representing
-the mental images we form in our minds are analogous to the
physical stimuli we observe
SYMBOLIC CODE
-words
-form of knowledge representation that has been chosen arbitrarily to
stand for something that does not perceptually resemble what is
being represented
-a symbol may be anything that is arbitrarily designated to stand for
something other than itself
**VERBAL INFORMATION -seems to be processed differently than
pictorial information
Supporting evidence:
 Actual visual perception could interfere with simultaneously
visual imagery - the need to produce a verbal response could
interfere with the simultaneously mental manipulation od words
 Brooks: a visual task requiring a visual response and a verbal
task requiring a verbal response - assumed that both task and
response required the same system for completion
 A response involving visual perception can interfere with a task
involving manipulations of a visual image - a response involving
Janella Hope B. Umali
 Janella Hope B. Umali

verbal expression can interfere with a task involving mental ┌ Do Propositional Theory and Imagery Hold Up to their
manipulations of a verbal statement promises?
-TWO DISTINCT CODES:
(1) Imaginal (analogical) code
Limitations of Mental Images
(2) Verbal (symbolic) code
AMBIGUOUS FIGURE
-meaning that it can be interpreted in more than one way
┌ Storing Knowledge as Abstract Concepts: Propositional Theory
-often used in studies of perception
PROPOSITIONAL THEORY -determine whether mental representations of images are truly
-Conceptual-propositional theory analogical to perceptions of physical objects
-Propositional theory
-we do not store mental representations in the forms of images or **Chambers and Reisberg’s findings: people plainly do not use images
mere words to represent what they see. An alternative and more plausible
-we may experience our mental representations as images, but these explanations is that a propositional code may be override the imaginal
images are epiphenomena code in some circumstances.

EPIPHENOMENA **Visual images can be distorted through verbal information

-secondary and derivative phenomena that occur as a result of other **Semantic (verbal) information tends to distort recall of visual
more basic cognitive processes images in the direction of the meaning of the images

MENTAL REPRESENTATION ┌ Limitations of Propositional Theory

-MENTALESE -we do not necessarily need a propositional code to manipulate
-more closely resemble the abstract form of a proposition information, but we can manipulate mental imagery directly

PROPOSITION PROPOSITIONAL CODES

-is the meaning underlying a particular relationship among concepts -are less likely to influence imaginal ones when participants create
their own mental images
┌ What is a Proposition? -may influence imaginal ones - occur when the picture used to create
PREDICATE CALCULUS an image is ambiguous or rather abstract
-to express the underlying meaning of a relationship
-attempts to strip away the various superficial differences in the ways **Mental reinterpretation of ambiguous figures involves
we describe the deeper meaning of a proposition: TWO MANIPULATIONS:
[Relationship between elements] ([Subject element]), [Object (1) MENTAL REALIGNMENT of the reference frame: involve a
element]) shift in the positional orientations of the figures on the mental “page”
or “screen” on which the image is displayed
┌ Using Propositions (2) MENTAL RECONSTRUAL (reinterpretation) of the parts of
-may be used to describe any kind of relationship the figure
-Key idea: propositional form of mental representation is neither in
words nor in images. Rather, it is an abstract form representing the SUPPORTING HINTS:
underlying meanings of knowledge
IMPLICIT REFERENCE ATTENTIONAL HINT
FRAME HINT -were directed to attend to regions
PROPOSITIONAL VIEW -first shown another ambiguous of the figure where realignments
-both images and verbal statements are mentally represented in figure involving realignment of or reconstruals were to occur
terms of their deep meanings, and not as specific images or words the reference frame
-both are encoded and stored as propositions CONSTRUALS FROM “GOOD”
EXPLICIT REFERENCE FRAME PARTS
PROPOSITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS OF UNDERLYING HINT -asked to construe an image from
MEANINGS -asked to modify the reference parts determined to be “good”
ACTIONS SPATIAL POSITIONS frame by considering either (objective and empirical criteria)
-action, agent of action, object -vertically higher position “conceptual hint” or “abstract rather than from parts determined
hint” to be “bad” (similar criteria)
ATTRIBUTES CLASS OR CATEGORY
-external surface characteristic, MEMBERSHIP **some spontaneous reinterpretation of mental images for
attribute, object -categorical membership, category, ambiguous figures may occur - images of figures that may be
member reinterpreted without realigning the reference frame

**process involved in constructing and manipulating mental images

are similar to the processes involved in perceptual processes

Janella Hope B. Umali


FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE
-refers to individuals using about the same operations to serve about
the same purposes for their respective domains
**multiple codes rather than just a single code
MENTAL MANIPULATIONS OF IMAGES
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE HYPOTHESIS
-although visual imagery is not identical to visual perception, it is
functionally equivalent to it
-strongly analogous to each other - they can accomplish the same
goals
-analogous to the physical percepts they represent
-suggest that we use images rather than propositions in knowledge
representation for concrete objects that can be pictured in the mind
┌ Principles of Visual Imagery
-some principles of how visual imagery may be functionally equivalent
to visual perception
-guide for designing and evaluating research on imagery
RONALD FINKE’s principles of visual imagery:
(1) Mental transformations of images and our mental movements
across images correspond to those of physical objects and percepts
(2) Spatial relations among elements of a visual image are analogous
to those relations in actual physical space
(3) Mental images can be used to generate information that was not
explicitly stored during encoding
(4) Construction of mental images is analogous to the construction of
visually perceptible figures
(5) Visual imagery is functionally equivalent to visual perception in
terms of the processes of the visual system used for each
┌ Neuroscience and Functional Equivalence
-imagery can evoke responses in high-level visual brain areas and the
VISUAL PRIMARY CORTEX - areas that are highly involved in the
processing of visual stimuli we see with our eyes
-Studies showed that while both imagery and perception used similar
brain areas, the contributions of the areas and their levels activation
differed depending on whether the participants actually saw or just
mentally imagined an object - no visual input from the eyes during
imagery, which leads to a decrease in information compared with
visual perception
=TWO CONSEQUENCES:
 INTERNAL PROCESSING
-less complex because there is less information to deal with
 SIGNAL
-less differentiated between different brain regions
┌ Mental Rotations
-can be rotated just like physical objects
-zoom into mental images to see more details of a specific area or we
can scan across an image form one point to another
┌ How does Mental Rotation Work?
MENTAL ROTATION
-involves rotationally transforming an object’s visual mental image
-to rotate objects at larger angles of rotation takes longer
-whether the objects are rotated clockwise, counterclockwise or in the
third dimension of depth makes little difference
Janella Hope B. Umali
-response times are longer for DEGRADED STIMULI (blurry,
incomplete, less informative)
-response times longer for complex items and for unfamiliar figures
-older adults have more difficulty with this task
PRACTICE EFFECTS
-benefit of increased familiarity
-improvements in performance associated with increased practice
-when participants have practice in mentally rotating particular figures
(increasing their familiarity), their performance improves (not
applicable to novel figures)
-children and young showed speedier response times when given
opportunities for practice
**Mental Rotation: Automatic process for school-aged children and
adults
-familiarity with the items and practice with MR appear to enhance
response times
ROBERT KAIL
-enhanced response times=result of increasing automatization of the
task across the years of childhood and adolescence
-automatization - sign of more effective visuospatial skills = increased
speed =increased accuracy in spatial memory
┌ Neuroscience and Mental Rotation
-PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX: is activated when participants imagine
manually rotating a stimulus (but not when they imagine a rotation
driven by an electric motor)
-areas associated with Hand movement were particularly active during
MR
-prior physical rotation of the objects affected the way their brains
later processed the MR of images of those images
-EARLY VISUAL CORTEX: first area that receives input form the
retina when we see an object (areas 17 and 18)
┌ Gender and Mental Rotation
-young children - no gender differences
-men and women use different strategies to solve mental rotation
problems
WOMEN
-less parietal activation
-exhibit additional inferior frontal activation
-spatial tasks involve both sides of the brain
-proportionally greater amount of gray matter in the parietal lobe -
performance disadvantage for MR tasks
MEN
-right side dominates the spatial tasks
┌ Zooming in on Mental Images: Image Scaling
-we use mental images the same way we use our actual perceptions
-resolution is limited
-seeing details of large objects is easier than seeing such details of
small ones
-we respond more quickly to questions about larger objects we
observe than to questions about small ones we observe
-the larger the eye on the scree, the more details we can see
**Research suggests,
-on visual perception it is easy to control the sizes of the objects
you see
Janella Hope B. Umali

-on image size controlling the sizes of people’s mental images is
more difficult
=use relative size as a means of manipulating image size
**Supports the ff:
(1) Functional equivalence hypothesis: when we see something in
front of our ”mental eye”, it takes children and adults about the same
amount of time to perceive it, just as it would if we saw something in
real life
(2) Dual-code view in two ways:
a) For adults and older children, responses based on the use
of imagery differed from responses based on propositions
b) Development of propositional knowledge and ability does
not occur at the same rate as the development of imaginal
knowledge and ability (children slower) = supports Pavio’s
notion of two distinct codes
┌ Examining Objects: Image Scaling
-KEY IDEA: images can be scanned in much the same way as physical
percepts can be scanned
-our strategies and responses for imaginal scanning should be the
same as for perceptual scanning
-the further away from each other the objects were, the longer it took
participants to scan from one object to the other
-they actually scan the image as needed for a response
SHEPARD AND METZLER
-found linearly increasing reaction times for mental rotations as the
angle of rotation increased
┌ Representational Neglect
SPATIAL NEGLECT
-person ignores half of his or her visual field
REPRESENTATIONAL NEGLECT
-a person asked to imagine a scene and then describe it ignores half of
the imagined scene
-when presented by an image, they described the entire image
-when the image was removed and were asked to describe from
memory, they failed to describe the left portion
-present only when a vantage point is given
-it is likely that there exists complete knowledge of the scene, but that
knowledge sometimes is not accessible when the patient generates a
mental image
**often occur together, they can also occur independently
SYNTHESIZING IMAGES AND PROPOSITIONS
DUAL-CODE THEORY
-knowledge is represented both in images and in symbols
PROPOSITIONAL THEORY
-knowledge is represented only in underlying propositions, not in the
form of images, words or other symbols
-abstract form representing the underlying meanings of knowledge
MENTAL IMAGERY
-appears functionally equivalent to perception in many ways
-mental rotation, image scalling (sizing), and image scanning
Janella Hope B. Umali
**Limits to the analogy -perception and imagery- ambiguous figures
and unfamiliar mental manipulations
┌ Do Experimenters’ Expectations Influence Experiment Outcomes?
-experimental participants performing visualization tasks may be
responding in part to the demand characteristics of the task (result
from the experimenters’ expectations regarding the outcomes)
┌ Johnson-Laird’s Mental Modes
-distinguished from others because of its criterion = verbal expression
MENTAL REPRESENTATION
-may take any of three forms: propositions, images or mental models
PROPOSITIONS
-are fully abstracted representations of meaning that are verbally
expressible
MENTAL MODELS
-knowledge structures that individuals construct to understand and
explain their experiences
-models are constrained by the individuals’ implicit theories about
these experiences, which can be more or less accurate
-model depends on your beliefs about them
-applied to a broad range of cognitive phenomena (visual perception,
memory, comprehension of text passages and reasoning)
-provide an additional means of representation in addition to
propositions and visual images
-not mutually exclusive with these other two forms, but they are
complementary to them
-provide a way of explaining empirical findings (haptic and auditory
forms of imagery) which seem quite different from visual images
HAPTIC (TOUCH-BASED) “IMAGERY”
-suggests alternative modalities for mental imagery
-shares a number of features with visual imagery - similar brain areas
are active during both types of imagery
-involves the formation of a mental model that is analogous, in some
respects, to visual imagery
-easier to conceptualize auditory images in terms of mental models
than strictly in terms of the kinds of pictorial mental representations
of which speak when they think of visual imagery
AUDITORY MODALITY
-participants took longer mentally to shift a sound upward in pitch
than downward
-when one generates an auditory image, the same brain areas as
those involved in hearing are engaged
FAULTY MENTAL MODELS
-responsible for many errors in thinking
-experience: useful tool for the repair of faulty mental models
(explicitly= helpful)
┌ Neuroscience: Evidence for Multiple Codes
-neuropsychological findings may circumvent many issues of demand
characteristics in resolving the dual-code controversy
-does not eliminate experimenter biases regarding where to look for
lesions or the deficits arising from them
Janella Hope B. Umali
 Janella Hope B. Umali

┌ Left Brain or Right Brain: Where is information manipulated? **people use both an analogical code and propositional code for
RIGHT LEFT imaginal representations such as images of maps
-represent and -more proficient in representing and
manipulate manipulating verbal and other SPATIAL-FRAMEWORK THEORY
visuospatial knowledge symbol-based knowledge -when people construct a mental model of the space around them,
in a manner similar to -human brain has the ability to manipulate they often orient themselves on their body along three axes:
perception imaginal components and symbols and to up-down(quickest), front-back and left-right(longest)
-human brain generate entirely new information
represents knowledge ┌ Rules of Thumb of Using Our Mental Maps: Heuristics
in a manner that is **CORBALLIS HEURISTICS
analogous to our -humans alone can conceive what they -rules of thumb
physical environment have never perceived -lead to a distortion of our mental images,
-use of this in manipulating cognitive maps suggests that propositional
┌ Two Kinds of Images: Visual versus Spatial knowledge affects imaginal knowledge - when people are solving
VISUAL IMAGERY problems and answering questions about images
-refers to the use of images that represent visual characteristics -conceptual information seems to distort mental images -
(colors and shapes) propositional strategies
-event-related potentials: compared brain processes associated with
visual perception to brain processes associated with visual imagery **Distortions seem to reflect a tendency to regularize features of
-visual perception: ERPs are elevated in the occipital region mental maps - angles, lines and shapes are represented as more like
pure abstract geometric forms than they really are
SPATIAL IMAGERY
-refers to images that represent spatial features (depth dimensions, EXAMPLES:
distances and orientations) Right-Angle Bias
Symmetry Heuristic
**FARAH Rotation Heuristic
NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: cognitive architecture includes Alignment Heuristic
representation of both the visual appearance and spatial structure of Relative-Position Heuristic
objects
SEMANTIC OR PROPOSITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
SPATIAL COGNITION AND COGNITIVE MAPS -can influence our imaginal representations of world maps
SPATIAL COGNITION
-deals with the the acquisition, organization and use of knowledge FUSIFORM FACE AREA
about objects and actions in 2-D and 3-D space -imagining a face

COGNITIVE MAPS PARAHIPPOCAMPAL PLACE AREA

-internal representations of our physical environment, particularly -imagining a scene associated wit particular place
centering on spatial relationships
-seem to offer internal representations that stimulate particular PARIETAL AREA
spatial features of our external environment -imagining objects
-EDWARD TOLMAN (rat=maze) -visual-space analysis in both imagery and visual-perception

**Our imagery abilities are potential keys to our survival and to what
┌ Of Rats, Bees, Pigeons, and Humans
makes us intelligent in our everyday lives
LEFT HIPPOCAMPUS
-crucial for the perception of landmarks within the environment
┌ Creating Maps from what you hear: text maps
-we may able to create cognitive maps from a verbal descriptions
RIGHT HIPPOCAMPUS
-may be as accurate as those created from looking at a graphic map
-sensitivity to global features of the environment
-construction of mental imagery may involve both: process analogous
to perception and processes relying on propositional representations
THREE TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
LANDMARK ROUTE-ROAD SURVEY
-particular features -involves specific -involves estimated
at a location pathways for moving distances between
-based on both one location to landmarks, much as
imaginal and another they might appear on
propositional -based on both survey maps
representations procedural -may be represented
knowledge and by imaginally or
declarative propositionally
knowledge

Janella Hope B. Umali