scholarly journals Unconscious Imagination and the Mental Imagery Debate

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berit Brogaard ◽  
Dimitria Electra Gatzia
2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romi Nijhawan ◽  
Beena Khurana

In the imagery debate, a key question concerns the inherent spatial nature of mental images. What do we mean by spatial representation? We explore a new idea that suggests that motion is instrumental in the coding of visual space. How is the imagery debate informed by the representation of space being determined by visual motion?


2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily T. Troscianko

AbstractI argue that literary studies can contribute to the “imagery debate” (between pictorialist, propositionalist, and enactivist accounts of mental imagery). While imagery questionnaires are pictorially configured and conflate imagining and seeing with pictorial representation, literary texts can exploit language's capacity for indeterminacy and therefore elicit very different imaginative experiences, thus illuminating the non-pictorial qualities of mental imagery.


Vision ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 30
Author(s):  
Geoff G. Cole ◽  
Abbie C. Millett ◽  
Steven Samuel ◽  
Madeline J. Eacott

Perspective-taking has been one of the central concerns of work on social attention and developmental psychology for the past 60 years. Despite its prominence, there is no formal description of what it means to represent another’s viewpoint. The present article argues that such a description is now required in the form of theory—a theory that should address a number of issues that are central to the notion of assuming another’s viewpoint. After suggesting that the mental imagery debate provides a good framework for understanding some of the issues and problems surrounding perspective-taking, we set out nine points that we believe any theory of perspective-taking should consider.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 584-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Issajeva

This article attempts to give a plausible explanation to the long-debated question about the nature of mental imagery (MI). The traditional approach to this question is based on the representational paradigm, which, I claim, is misguided. Instead of representational aspects of mental imagery, I emphasize the functions of mental imagery, the variety of properties that images exhibit in experimental studies, and the relations between different characteristics of images, their functions and the subject of imagery. That is, I propose to account for mental imagery as a sign system, consisting of different types of signs. A mental image can contain important properties as parts of the complex sign. This approach to the explanation of the nature of MI is beneficial, since it suggests the phenomenon of mental imagery, which overcomes some long-standing controversies on the issue.


NeuroImage ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Mellet ◽  
L. Petit ◽  
B. Mazoyer ◽  
M. Denis ◽  
N. Tzourio

1994 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard J. Dalcourt ◽  

1984 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 653-658
Author(s):  
MM Walsh ◽  
R Hannebrink ◽  
B Heckman

1971 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 741-741
Author(s):  
JOHN H. FLAVELL
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document