Abstract
Problem: When a man was impressed by a figure normally presented and after a while the figure was shown to him again turned 180° (upside down) or 90° (sidelong), how would he regard it? Is the recognition possible at all in such a condition? Is this kind of recognition different from the ordinary one? Why does the difference appear? Such are the main problems the auther took up in this study.
Experiment I: In order to get the fundamental data I tried the following experiment. Stimuli were consisted of “meaningless” figures. One series comprised 6 figures. They were cut out of black paper and pasted on the white cards. Apparatus was a diaphragm with an opening (8-8 cm) stood vertical to the surface of a desk, the exposition was limited by a shutter. The 1st exposition (impression) was 3 sec. and the 2nd (recognition) 1 sec. long. The interval between impression and recognition was 3 minutes.
Before the beginning of the 2nd exposition 2 new figures were added to each series. Subjects were divided into 3 groups and the displacements of the figures were executed as follows: n123n 4 q ctogroupA,n 3 n 4 5 6 to group B and n123n 459 to group C. (n shows a new fi gure.)
Results: Most of our figures (87%) could be recognised when they were shown again without any displacement. In the case of displaced (upsidedown and sidelong) exposition, however, the percentage of correct answers reduced remarkablly (35%) and much of the rest (40%) were regarded quite as new as the added figures. But even in this case the recognition was not always impossible as found above. The subjects became aware of the displacements sometime or other in the course of experiment and conseluiently reorganized their mental sets. On the other hand there seems to be some differences between the results of 180°and 90°displacements. The former showed somewhat better results. Besides an impression of stability (or weight) was often reported by many subjects whenthe figure has a horisontal line at the bottom.
Experiment II: Some of those stimuli were exposed invarious positions. Subjects had to describe the phenomenal figure as directly experienced.
Results: By the displacements of the stimuli the phenomenal figure used to change its total impression This change was always unexpected and considerably abrupt. So the transposition of this kind of new phenomenal figure into the old one is the first step of the recognition. The former impression of stability and extinction or substitution of it in later exposition were reported again and again in each displacement.
Experiment III: Three subjects were instructed differently (copying, mere recognition and recognition knowing of the displacement) before tachistoscopic exposition. Each series of the stimuli was shown two times without interval. Some of them were displaced in the second exposition.
Results: To recognize the displaced figure, there must be the exisitence of a definite attitude which is determined by the present situation, and which can be distinguished from that of mere recognition. (Exper. IV, V are olnitted in this abstract.)
Experiment VI: Such a figure as Fig. 8 (II, 4) (see Japanese text p.633) was exposed tachistoscopically and subjects were required to copy it. The first exposition was made in one position, then after a week or so the next exposition took place in the other position. Thus 4 expositions in 4 positions were performed. The sublects seldom became aware of that they had copied the same stimulus in the changed position every time.
Resnlts: A and B(or C and D)parts of the figure were drawn on the same straight line only when the parts were given at the bottom horizontally. In the other positions, vertical at the left or right or horizontal at the top, they were drawn on two different lines.
