Back to all research

Anomalous visual experience is linked to perceptual uncertainty and visual imagery vividness

DOI: 10.1007/s00426-020-01364-7
Salge, J. H., Pollmann, S., & Reeder, R. R. (2021). Anomalous visual experience is linked to perceptual uncertainty and visual imagery vividness. Psychological Research, 85(5), 1848–1865. doi:10.1007/s00426-020-01364-7

Abstract

An imbalance between top-down and bottom-up processing on perception (specifically, over-reliance on top-down processing) can lead to anomalous perception, such as illusions. One factor that may be involved in anomalous perception is visual mental imagery, which is the experience of “seeing” with the mind’s eye. There are vast individual differences in self-reported imagery vividness, and more vivid imagery is linked to a more sensory-like experience. We, therefore, hypothesized that susceptibility to anomalous perception is linked to individual imagery vividness. To investigate this, we adopted a paradigm that is known to elicit the perception of faces in pure visual noise (pareidolia). In four experiments, we explored how imagery vividness contributes to this experience under different response instructions and environments. We found strong evidence that people with more vivid imagery were more likely to see faces in the noise, although removing suggestive instructions weakened this relationship. Analyses from the first two experiments led us to explore confidence as another factor in pareidolia proneness. We, therefore, modulated environment noise and added a confidence rating in a novel design. We found strong evidence that pareidolia proneness is correlated with uncertainty about real percepts. Decreasing perceptual ambiguity abolished the relationship between pareidolia proneness and both imagery vividness and confidence. The results cannot be explained by incidental face-like patterns in the noise, individual variations in response bias, perceptual sensitivity, subjective perceptual thresholds, viewing distance, testing environments, motivation, gender, or prosopagnosia. This indicates a critical role of mental imagery vividness and perceptual uncertainty in anomalous perceptual experience.

Authors

  • Johannes H. Salge1
  • Stefan Pollmann1
  • Reshanne R. Reeder5

Overview/Introduction

This study explores how our minds can sometimes trick us into seeing things that aren't there, a phenomenon known as pareidolia. Specifically, it looks at how vivid mental imagery and uncertainty in perception contribute to seeing faces in random patterns or noise. The researchers wanted to understand if people who can imagine things more vividly are more prone to these visual tricks.

Methodology

The researchers conducted four experiments using a method that encourages people to see faces in random visual noise. Participants were shown images with no actual faces and asked if they could see any. The study measured how vividly participants could imagine things and how confident they were in their perceptions. Different instructions and environments were used to see how these factors influenced the results.

Key Findings

  • People with more vivid mental imagery were more likely to see faces in random noise.
  • The link between vivid imagery and seeing faces was weaker when suggestive instructions were removed.
  • Confidence played a role; those less sure about what they saw were more prone to pareidolia.
  • When the visual environment was less ambiguous, the connection between vivid imagery, confidence, and pareidolia disappeared.

Implications

These findings suggest that people who can vividly imagine things might be more susceptible to seeing things that aren't there, especially in uncertain situations. This has broader implications for understanding how our brains process information and how individual differences in perception can affect our experiences. It could also help in understanding certain psychological conditions where perception is altered.

Limitations

The study acknowledges that the results cannot be explained by factors like incidental patterns in the noise, individual biases, or differences in sensitivity. However, the study's findings are limited to the specific conditions and methods used, and further research is needed to explore these phenomena in different contexts and with larger, more diverse groups.