Psychologists Melissa Allen and Alison Chambers recently showed these images to teenagers with autism in an attempt to find out whether they were able to perceive the effect normally: Implicit and explicit understanding of ambiguous figures by adolescents with autism spectrum disorderA leading theory of autism is weak central coherence - the idea that autistic people tend to be focussed on details, rather than the "big picture". This might predict that autism would interfere with the perception of these figures because the ambiguity is all about the global, gestalt meaning: the details are fixed, but you can see them as adding up to two different things.
The autistic teens and a control group were showed the images and asked to copy them using a pen and paper. Then their drawings were rated for "duckness" or "rabbitness", or equivalent, by a rater who wasn't told which diagnosis the drawer had.
The results showed that the autistic group were able to perceive both interpretations of the figures, and were equally likely to report experiencing the "reversal" phenomena in which the image seems to flip. However, when it came to the drawings, they were less biased by being told which interpretation to use. When the instructions said "Draw this rabbit" as opposed to "Draw this picture", controls tended to make their copy more rabbity, but autistic people copied it faithfully.
Beyond their relevance to autism, these kinds of pictures are interesting because they tell us something important about perception.
You can't see these images for what they really are. They really are ambiguous - they're neither duck, nor rabbit. They're both. However, our brains insist that they are one the other, at any one time. They're duck, rabbit, duck, rabbit. But they never seem to be a "duckrabbit". Not for me anyway. Even though I know, in an abstract sense, that this is what they really are.
Both "duck" and "rabbit" are things we've encountered a thousand times before. So we seem to be drawn to see them in those familiar terms. "Duckrabbits" are unheard of, outside psychology. Rather than sit on the fence, our perceptions fall into the well-worn grooves of our preexisting categories.
Allen ML, & Chambers A (2011). Implicit and explicit understanding of ambiguous figures by adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Autism : the international journal of research and practice PMID: 21486897
9 comments:
Duck picture! Rabbit picture! Duck picture!
Seriously though, I'm not sure what disorder prevents me from seeing the man's head in that picture... Unless he wears a blindfold and has a nasty tumor on his neck, I still can't figure it out.
Also, Some pictures are inherently more one thing than the other, like the horse (although that's a donkey in my opinion). Sure you can see the seal when told to, but it's drawn in a weird position. Has anyone ever tested these to see what unbiased observers think they are?
Actually, the seal/horse looks like a seal to me, most of the time. It's a weird position, but maybe it's swimming though the water. The horse/donkey on the other hand just looks badly drawn to me. The eyes aren't eyes and the neck is all missing.
I agree though that the "man's head" is very dubious. Maybe he is wearing a kind of bandana? But that still leaves the tumor on his neck...poor guy,
Rabbit, donkey [Neo, seals don't have flippers on their back, plus it's defying gravity in that awkward position], playboy bunny + Hugh Hefner logo [Anon, perhaps a repressed sexual disorder, stick to Jesus on a donkey], squirrel with a big butt.
These pictures look way too ambiguous to be hybrids. I get people with autism get caught up with details, but you have to admit these pictures weren't drawn by someone with autism or careful attention to detail. Maybe the autistic people copied it faithfully because they were following instructions faithfully than the controls. They notice the tangent of the line, degrees of proximity lalala the details like they say, not necessarily to do with implicit/explicit understanding perse. When I draw I don't think about it. Some people seem naturally good at it and others suck at it. They should compare crappy drawers from good drawers. Good drawers tend to replicate more accurately aight?
Interesting. I looked at the pictures before I read the text, and I definitely see the duckrabbit as a duckrabbit unless I make a deliberate effort to 'read' the image from left to right, or right to left, which forces the creature into a particular form. (Well, what I actually see is a seagull-rabbit - the beak's all wrong for a duck - but the principle's the same.)
None of the others flip for me. The horse and swan just look like a horse and a swan, however much I try to see the other creatures. And the manbunny looks like a man with a rabbit's head grafted onto the back of his neck - I guess that's another way of being a manbunny.
I am completely against the fact that these are good tools for any disorder experiment. You can perceive them as "whatever" as they don't quite resemble anything we've already seen. Example:
Swan/Squirrel: it is actually a squirrel that is masked by a swan.
man/bunny: it is actually an old lady tide her hair with a bunny like ribbon.
horse/seal: it is a horse eating a bird (which is a bit bizzare activity for a real horse).
duck/rabbit: it seems to be one of those lame hand shadow puppets.
I don't agree that you don't perceive them as what they are. Or maybe it is better to say that we don't perceive ANYTHING as what it is. It is only every one of us INTERPRETATION of that.
Ironically test like these are exactly what they say the test show. Too detailed.
So detailed it's practically meaningless.
It goes a bit like this:
If i watch a movie i see each and every detail down to the plastic surgery marks. I see all errors in logic, continuity and psychical impossibilities. I see that a jumping car in high speed chase has different plates on the back then the front whilst the whole screen is exploding with action.
Still i can follow the movie in its larger aspect quite well, to the point of knowing the first 10 minutes what the plot is.
This has absolutely totally nothing to do with 'gestalt' or some other 100's of years old totally inept concept.
The problem with autism is that the information flow enters unfiltered. You are offered all info there is at once. One of the main reasons why older autists fail in social environments. Too much stimulus overloads the CPU.
In younger ones it's just like being shocked by electricity every time too much stimulus comes in. The brain isn't capable yet of dealing with that and just goes haywire resulting in tantrums and the like.
Stop looking at details of the syndrome. Forget about Freud,Jung. That junk is so completely incorrect it's more on the level of phrenology as an explanation.
I fall asleep in movies, life is too hard.
Before this goes any further, I declare myself right by virtue of being a woman.. no amount of science can disapprove that. As a nest defender I see these as predators with the intention to mate. Heed my warning brethrens.
You've not heard of a duckrabbit? (They're delicious milk stouts).
http://www.duckrabbitbrewery.com/
Anyone with competent drawing skills should be able to copy these line drawings accurately, so that they stay ambiguous.
Those who can't draw would have more difficulty.
Were the various subjects checked to see if they were any good at drawing? Life drawing experience, for instance?
DC
Post a Comment