First, the test, riffing off the mention lately of the number of
different senses required to appreciate music:

  [Spot the dogs <i>(Image: Gandee Vasan/Getty)</i>]

For most people, just a swirl of black blotches on a white background,
right? But what if I asked you to tell me about your dog Spot? Suddenly
it's "See Spot run."

Now think of all those "Jesus visions" found in pieces of toast and
offered for sale on eBay. Or Maharishi declaring that the icicle forming
on his balcony was a manifestation of Shiva. Almost certainly, to
everyone who saw it before then, it was merely an icicle. But after he'd
put a name to it, people went around claiming they'd witnessed a
"miracle."

Or think about those interminable boat rides, on which everyone was
standing around shivering in the cold, waiting for something -- anything
-- to happen. They're just staring out at a lake, bored shitless, and
then Maharishi says something about the Vedas describing soma as having
the quality of "the full moon on water," and suddenly everyone is oohing
and aahing and the whole boatride becomes Soma Chanting Evening.  :-)

Just a reminder to folks to stop and consider whether you really see
what you think you see, or whether you're just seeing what you were told
to see...
Words prompt us to notice what our subconscious sees
It's a case of hear no object, see no object. Hearing  the name of an
object appears to influence whether or not we see it,  suggesting that
hearing and vision might be even more intertwined than  previously
thought.

Studies of how the brain files away concepts
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21728984.400-take-a-peek-inside-t\
he-brains-filing-cabinet.html>  suggest that words and images are
tightly coupled. What is not clear, says Gary Lupyan
<http://sapir.psych.wisc.edu/>   of the University of Wisconsin in
Madison, is whether language and  vision work together to help you
interpret what you're seeing, or  whether words can actually change what
you see.

Lupyan and Emily Ward <http://www.yale.edu/perception/>   of Yale
University used a technique called continuous flash suppression  (CFS)
on 20 volunteers to test whether a spoken prompt could make them  detect
an image that they were not consciously aware they were seeing.

CFS works by displaying different images  to the right and left eyes:
one eye might be shown a simple shape or an  animal, for example, while
the other is shown visual "noise" in the form  of bright, randomly
flickering shapes. The noise monopolises the brain,  leaving so little
processing power for the other image that the person  does not
consciously register it, making it effectively invisible.
Wheels of perception
In a series of CFS experiments, the  researchers asked volunteers
whether or not they could see a specific  object, such as a dog.
Sometimes it was displayed, sometimes not. When  it was not displayed or
when the image was of another animal such as a  zebra or kangaroo, the
volunteers typically reported seeing nothing. But  when a dog was
displayed and the question mentioned a dog, the  volunteers were
significantly more likely to become aware of it. "If you  hear a word,
that greases the wheels of perception," says Lupyan: the  visual system
becomes primed for anything to do with dogs.

In a similar experiment, the team found  that volunteers were more
likely to detect specific shapes if asked  about them. For example,
asking "Do you see a square?" made it more  likely than that they would
see a hidden square but not a hidden circle.

James McClelland <http://psych.stanford.edu/%7Ejlm/>   of Stanford
University in California, who was not involved in the work,  thinks it
is an important study. It suggests that sight and language  are
intertwined, he says.

Lupyan now wants to study how the language  we speak influences the
ability of certain terms to help us spot  images. For instance, breeds
might be categorised differently in  different languages and might not
all become visible when volunteers  hear their language's word for
"dog". He also thinks textures or smells  linked to an image might have
a similar effect on whether we perceive it  as words.







Reply via email to