Kinds of imagery
Lance
professions
Olessia Blajenkova1 , Maria Kozhevnikov1 and Michael A. Motes1
(1) Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA
Published online: 9 August 2006
Abstract In the current research, we took a new approach to examining
individual differences in mental imagery that relied on a key
distinction regarding visual imagery, namely the distinction between
object and spatial imagery, and further examined the ecological
validity of this distinction. Object imagers consistently prefer to
construct colorful, pictorial, high-resolution images of individual
objects and scenes, and spatial imagers prefer to use imagery to
schematically represent spatial relations among objects and can
efficiently perform complex spatial transformations. To examine the
ecological validity of the object versus spatial imager distinction,
we examined the object and spatial imagery preferences and skills of
groups of professionals.
Visual artists, scientists, architects, and humanities professionals
completed two types of imagery tests: spatial imagery tests assessing
abilities to process spatial relations and perform spatial
transformations, and object imagery tests assessing abilities to
process literal appearances of objects in terms of color, shape, and
brightness. A clear distinction was found between scientists and
visual artists: Visual artists showed above average object imagery
abilities but below average spatial imagery abilities; whereas,
scientists showed above average spatial imagery abilities but below
average object imagery abilities. Visual artists tended to be object
imagers, and scientists tended to be spatial imagers. Thus, even
though both groups use visual imagery extensively in their work, they
in fact tended to excel in only one type of imagery.
Furthermore, we interviewed the groups of professionals about imagery
characteristics and imagery processes that they typically use when
work, we had them interpret kinematics graphs and abstract art, and we
monitored their eye-movements as they engaged in various perception
and imagery tasks. The data revealed various qualitative differences
between the professional groups. Both visual artists and scientists
reported using imagery in their work. However, visual artists
preferred to use object imagery, but scientists preferred to use
spatial imagery for their work. Humanities professionals, however,
reported less use of imagery. Additionally, visual artists reported
that their images were more likely to come as a whole, but scientists
reported that their images were generated part-by-part. Visual
artist?s images were more persistent, less intentional, and had
multiple meanings as compared to scientist?s images. Furthermore,
visual artists and scientists interpreted kinematics graphs and
abstract art qualitatively differently. Visual artists tended to
interpret graphs literally (graphs-as-pictures), but scientists tended
to interpret graphs schematically, in abstract way. However, visual
artists tended to interpret the abstract art as abstract
representations, but scientists tended to interpret abstract art
literally, in a concrete way.
The finding that professional domain, where work involves extensive
use of object or spatial imagery, differentially predicted object and
spatial imagery abilities and approaches in processing visual
information provides ecological validation of the distinction between
object and spatial imagers. Furthermore, these results provide support
for the idea of a trade-off between object and spatial imagery
abilities (i.e., a person being more effective at using one type of
imagery and then tending to use this type of imagery more frequently
than and at the expense of the other type of imagery).
Link:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/98670h633738v620/?p=0e5c82ebf7fe49c7aea8d88c40537ef8&pi=9