.
The current manuscript was submitted to New Ideas in Psychology in Jul 2023. It is a revision of a manuscript submitted to Psychological Review in Jun 2023. The submission to Psychological Review appears as a post in Visual Perception Science in Jun 2023.
The main purpose of this note is to consider what should be a theoretical error in the submission to Psychological Review. This submission provided evidence that an association exists between the accuracy of a perceived location and the accuracy of perceived features at this location. It also accounted for this association with the theory that an assimilation process enables the accuracy of perceived features to become similar (assimilate) to the accuracy of their perceived location. This is the theory that is thought to be in error. The current paper does not mention this theory. A replacement theory of the just mentioned association is that it occurs because the accuracy of a perceived location (more precisely, the neural encoding for this accuracy) enables the accuracy of perceived features at this location. The current manuscript does not cover this association and, accordingly, does not cover the replacement theory.
The current manuscript also differs significantly from the previous submission and hence previous post in that it is shorter in length.
.
Abstract
A proposition: An assimilation process enables several general results. Accordingly, this paper supports the following statements. A perceived location assimilates (becomes similar) to a different location. A perceived three-dimensional (3D) location assimilates to a different 3D location. A perceived conditioned stimulus assimilates to a retained unconditioned stimulus and thereby the conditioned response occurs. A perceived response-correlated-stimulus completely assimilates to a retained stimulus produced by the instrumental response and thereby the instrumental response occurs once more. (A response-correlated stimulus is the stimulus that accompanies the occurrence of a response.) An observer’s perceived response-correlated-stimulus assimilates to a retained stimulus produced by a demonstrator’s response and thereby delayed imitation occurs. A young animal’s perceived fear assimilates to the perceived calmness (absence of fear) produced by stimuli of a mother and hence its fear is reduced. An assimilation process arguably enables contrast.
.
A proposition to be supported is that a perception becomes similar (assimilates) to another perception for perceived locations, perceived three-dimensional (3D) locations, classical conditioning, instrumental conditioning, imitation, fear reduction in young animals by the mother, and contrast. Assimilation is basically defined as occurring when a perception becomes similar to including the same as another perception. A proposal is that the same process enables (contributes to bringing about) these putative assimilation-produced perceptions. This proposal is supported by Occam Razor’s rule. An accordant statement is that an assimilation process enables several general results.
Each of the just indicated topics is covered in a separate section. Section 1 also includes subsections.
1. An Assimilation Process Enables a Location to Become Similar
to Another Location
1.1 Assimilation between Locations Occurs
A result is that the location of an object was perceived as similar (assimilated) to the location of another object (e.g. Ganz, 1964; Prinzmetal, 2005; Rentschler, Hilz, & Grimm, 1975). This result has also been referred to as “attraction” (e.g. Cicchini, Binda, Burr, & Morrone, 2013; Smith, 1954) and “spatial compression” (e.g. Born, Kruger, Zimmermann, & Cavanagh, 2016). An illustrative result is that the location of a small disk was perceived as similar to the location of a near large disk (Prinzmetal).
When the location of an object is perceived as similar (assimilated) to the location of another object, the location of one or both of these objects may not be consciously perceived. One reason is that an object’s assimilation-produced location may be consciously perceived instead. In accord, assimilation between locations (not assimilation between perceived locations) will be said to occur. Another phrasing that will be used to indicate the occurrence of assimilation between locations is that an object assimilates toward the location of another object. Objects that result in assimilation between locations include a disk, a vertical line, a letter, and so on.
Accordingly, assimilation between locations is defined as occurring when an object’s location comes to be perceived as similar (assimilated) to another location. This increase in perceived similarity can be complete (100%). This definition agrees with the meaning of assimilation between perceived features. For example, when yellow assimilates toward orange, yellow can become orange but not red, because yellow is more similar to orange than to red, and when object A in a one o’clock location assimilates toward object B in a two o’clock location, object A’s perceived location can become two o’clock but not three o’clock, because a one o’clock location is more similar to a two o’clock location than to a three o’clock location.
The assimilation-produced location may also not be consciously perceived. One reason is that assimilation between locations can occur sufficiently rapidly that the assimilation-produced location is not consciously perceived at all. Evidence of rapid assimilation between locations is in subsection 1.3. Nevertheless, an assimilation-produced perceived location will be referred to, one purpose being to distinguish between the locations of actual objects and an object’s location that changes due to assimilation.
Although assimilation-involved locations may not be consciously perceived, they should be encoded. Similarly, neural information of these locations should exist.
1.2. Saccades Are Measures of Perceived Location
This subsection concludes that saccadic responses can be measures of perceived location. It supports this conclusion with results indicating that an association exists between saccadic responses and traditional measures of perceived location. The main purpose of supporting this conclusion is that saccadic response results advise that assimilation between locations occurs (subsection 1.3).
An association exists between the saccadic response of its aim (landing position) and traditional measures of perceived location. This association occurs per results from the same studies (Aitsebaomo & Bedell, 1992; Miller, 1980; van Heusden, Rolfs, Cavanagh, & Hogendoorn, 2018; Vishwanath & Kowler, 2003). For example, the perceived location of a briefly retained target was relatively accurate per both the aim of a saccade toward its location and the reproduction of its location (Miller). The indicated association also occurs per the results of different studies. First, the perceived location of a briefly processed target was relatively inaccurate per the aim of a saccade toward the target (Aitsebaomo & Bedell, 1992), choice of a target’s location (Atkinson & Braddick, 1989), manual pointing toward the target (Adam, Paas, Ekering, & van Loon, 1995), and reproduction of the target’s location (Prinzmetal, 2005). Second, a perceived location approximated the unweighted average of two objects’ physical locations per the aim of a saccade toward this average location (Coren & Hoenig, 1972; Van der Stigchel & Nijboer, 2013) and per the reproduction of this location (Hazeltine, Prinzmetal, & Elliott, 1997).
An association also exists between the latency (speed) of a saccade toward a target and traditional measures of a target’s perceived location. This association advises that the latency of a saccade is also a measure of perceived location. Furthermore, a faster saccade implies that less time is needed to accurately perceive a location as long as the saccade’s aim is not less accurate. Evidence of the association follows. First, a nearer target and nontarget (distractor) resulted in a slower saccade toward the target than a farther target and nontarget (Ludwig & Gilchrist 2002; Theeuwes, Kramer, Hahn, Irwin, & Zelinsky, 1999 (a control condition result)) and also a less accurate perceived location of a target per choice of location (Ludwig & Gilchrist), judgment (Ganz, 1964), and reproduction (Rentschler et al., 1975) measures of perceived location. Second, the appearance of a time-2 (subsequent) target in the same location as a time-1 (initial) nontarget resulted in a faster saccade toward the time-2 target (Adler, Bala, & Krauzlis, 2002) and also a more accurate location of the target per a choice of location measure of perceived location (Donk & Soesman, 2010; Joseph & Optican (1996).
When an instruction is to saccade toward a target, a saccade’s aim (trajectory) can momentarily deviate toward (become more similar to) a nontarget’s (distractor’s) location prior to its aim becoming more similar to the target’s location (McSorley, Cruickshank, & Inman, 2009; Mulckhuyse, Van der Stigchel, & Theeuwes, 2009). The extent of a saccade’s momentary deviation toward the nontarget is arguably also a measure of perceived location. This is because an association exists between this extent and traditional measures of perceived location. Evidence of this association follows. A nearer target and nontarget increased the extent of a saccade’s momentary deviation toward a nontarget (McSorley et al., 2009) and also resulted in both a less accurate judgment (Ganz 1964) and reproduction (Rentschler et al., 1975) of a target’s location. Also, both a saccade and a manual reaching response momentarily deviated toward a nontarget’s location (van Zoest & Kerzel, 2015).
1.3. Saccades Reveal that Assimilation between Locations Occurs
An instruction to saccade toward a target when a nontarget (distractor) appears at about the same time results in the saccade aiming toward the nontarget’s location (Coren & Hoenig, 1972; Van der Stigchel & Nijboer, 2013), a slower saccade toward the target’s location (Ludwig & Gilchrist, 2002; Theeuwes et al., 1999 (a control condition result)), and a saccade’s momentarily deviating toward the nontarget’s location (McSorley et al., 2009; Mulckhuyse et al., 2009; van Zoest & Kerzel, 2015). The aim, latency, and momentary deviation of a saccade are measures of perceived location per subsection 1.2. Hence all these results are evidence that a target’s perceived location was similar to a nontarget’s location. Thus all these results are also evidence that a target assimilated toward a nontarget’s location.
2. An Assimilation Process Enables a Location to Become Similar
to Another Location in Perceived 3D
A perceived three-dimensional distance will be called a perceived 3D. When two (or more) objects are perceived at different 3Ds, each object’s location will be called a 3D location.
The current section provides evidence that an object’s 3D location becomes similar to (assimilates toward) another object’s 3D location in perceived 3D (not in perceived direction). Accordingly, assimilation between 3D locations will be said to occur. Also, an assimilation-produced perceived 3D location will be said to occur. The same assimilation process enables assimilation between locations, assimilation between 3D locations, and additional general results per this paper’s start.
Research refers to evidence of assimilation between 3D locations in different ways without mentioning assimilation. An exception is “an assimilation of their disparities” (Westheimer & Levi, 1987).
Evidence of assimilation between 3D locations comes from Gogel (1965). Evidence includes that light from a projector is perceived at the 3D location of a viewing screen. An interpretation is that the light’s 3D location is where the projector is and the light’s assimilation-produced 3D location is extremely similar (completely assimilated) to the screen’s 3D location. More evidence is that an afterimage’s perceived 3D location becomes extremely similar to a frontal surface’s 3D location. More evidence is that monocular viewing of white threads at different physical 3D distances resulted in the perception of them at the same perceived 3D (Judd, 1893, as cited in Gogel 1965). Presumably, assimilation-produced averaging of different 3D locations occurred. More evidence is that perceived slant was underestimated according to 18 articles.
Evidence of assimilation between 3D locations also comes from effects of disparity on perceived 3D per results of Foley and Richards (1978), Westheimer (1986), and Westheimer and Levi (1987). For example, dichoptic lines that produced crossed disparity and dichoptic lines that produced uncrossed disparity resulted in the perception of two lines at the same perceived 3D (Foley & Richards). Presumably, assimilation-produced averaging of different 3D locations occurred.
More evidence comes from drawings that affect the perceived 3D of locations. One observation is that the perceived 3D location of an internal white area of a line drawing of a cube is fairly similar to the inaccurately perceived 3D location of a rather near point on a line of this drawing. Hence presumably this white area assimilates toward the 3D location of this point.
3. An Assimilation Process Enables a CS
to Be Perceived as Similar to a Retained US
This section supports the theory “that the CS assimilates to the US” (D. L. King, 2001, p. 35). This theory maintains that an assimilation process enables the perception of the CS to be sufficiently similar to the retained US for the perception to result in the CR. A retained stimulus is the retention of a previously perceived stimulus. A CS, US, and CR are a conditioned stimulus, unconditioned stimulus, and conditioned response, respectively. Although the CS and the next two section’s “response-correlated stimulus” may not be consciously perceived, they are held to be encoded.
Support for this theory of classical conditioning is that pigs that perceived a coin and shortly afterwards perceived food came to root the coin (Breland & Breland, 1961), that is, came to make the same response that pigs make to perceived food. The theory is supported, because due to the coin-food occurrences, the pigs supposedly perceived the coin as sufficiently similar to the retained food to root the coin.
Similar support for this theory is that CS-US pairings can result in a CR that is highly similar to the unconditioned response (UR), that is, the response that the perception of the US produces. The reason there is support is that this high CR-UR similarity may be due to the perception of the CS as highly similar to the retained US. One supporting result is that pairing the ring of a bell with food resulted in dogs looking at the location of the bell (Zener, 1937), as dogs look when they perceive food. A second is that pairing the illumination of a plastic response key with food made pigeons peck the key, as pigeons peck when they perceive food (Jenkins & Moore, 1973). A third is that pairing the insertion of a response lever into an experimental enclosure with food made rats lick, paw, gnaw, and bite the response lever (Peterson, Ackil, Frommer, & Hearst, 1972; Stiers & Silberberg, 1974), as rats do when they perceive food. A fourth is that pairing the entering of a ball bearing into an experimental enclosure with food made rats put the ball bearing into their mouths (Timberlake, Wahl, & D. A. King, 1982), as rats do when they perceive food.
A CS is known to result in less dramatic CRs than the ones of the previous paragraph. Nevertheless, the theory continues to apply. An illustration of why is the following explanation of the classical conditioning of salivation using food. The CS results in the partial perception of food, that is, an image of food, and this partial perception produces the salivation. In addition, this explanation has support: When humans partially perceive (imagine) food, they tend to salivate. Furthermore, this explanation works in general, because “images of stimuli lead to responses similar to the ones produced by real stimuli” (D. L. King, 1973, p. 403). Likewise, “The idea that the CR is due to a CS-produced image of the UCS is supported by findings that suggest that images of stimuli result in responses similar to the ones produced by real stimuli” (D. L. King, 1979, p. 31).
A word (e.g., “red”) is frequently paired with its referent (e.g., a red color). Also, the familiar Stroop result amounts to evidence that a word can result in the partial perception of its referent. Hence the theory is supported.
More evidence for the theory is that a CS resulted in verbal responses that suggest that the CS was perceived as similar to the US (Davies, Davies, & Bennett, 1982; Ellson, 1941; Powers, Mathys, & Corlett, 2017). Furthermore, such a verbal response was associated with activation of a brain region that is also activated by perceiving the US (Powers et al.).
More evidence for the theory is that when a saccade was instructed to be toward a target, the saccade aimed toward a nontarget (distractor) that was paired with the eventual receipt of a larger financial reward more frequently than toward a nontarget that was paired with the eventual receipt of a smaller financial reward (Bucker, Belopolsky, & Theeuwes, 2015). A similar result is that pairing a nontarget with the eventual receipt of a larger financial reward resulted in a slower saccade toward the target (Le Pelley, Pearson, Griffiths, & Beesley, 2015). This is because this slower saccade to the target is evidence of a tendency to more frequently saccade toward the nontarget. A target assimilates toward the location of a nontarget per saccadic response measures of perceived location per subsection 1.3. Hence the current results support the possibility that the target assimilated toward the nontarget more frequently when the nontarget was paired with the larger financial award. A physical larger financial award presumably produces a more frequent saccade toward it. Thus the just indicated possibility supposedly occurred because the nontarget that was paired with the larger financial award became a CS and hence was perceived as similar to this larger financial reward.
4. An Assimilation Process Enables a Response-Correlated Stimulus
to Be Perceived as Extremely Similar to a Retained Stimulus
Produced by the Instrumental Response
This section supports an assimilation theory of instrumental conditioning. The reward learning type of instrumental conditioning is covered.
A response-correlated stimulus is the stimulus that accompanies the execution of a response; an occurring response-correlated stimulus means that the response is also occurring (is being executed). An assimilation theory of instrumental conditioning maintains that an assimilation process enables a response-correlated stimulus to be perceived as extremely similar to, that is, match, a retained stimulus produced by one or more previously executed instrumental responses. Hence the indicated match means that an assimilation-produced perceived response-correlated stimulus and the instrumental response occur jointly, hence explaining how the instrumental response occurs once more. Similar theoretical statements follow. “The animal brings about a match between a response-produced stimulus and an image of the same stimulus” (D. L. King, 1979, p. 449) (an image of a stimulus and a retained stimulus are alike.) Also, “the mechanism for matching may be essentially identical to the one for assimilation” (D. L. King, 2001, p. 36).
The assimilation theory of instrumental conditioning is supported by classical conditioning’s occurrence as follows. The stimulus that is correlated with an execution of an instrumental responses should be a CS, because it is paired with the reward that the instrumental response brings about. Similarly, classical conditioning should occur between “the response-produced stimuli and the goal” (D. L. King, 1974, p. 1115). An animal looks at a CS, puts it in its mouth, and so on per the preceding section. That is, an animal responds in order to better perceive a CS. Animals are also known to instrumentally respond to perceive secondary (conditioned) reinforcers that are CSs. Thus an animal should attempt to perceive the CS of the stimulus that is correlated with an execution of an instrumental response. Presumably this attempt is successful, because this success explains the occurrence of the instrumental response once more. Finally, the reason that this attempt is successful is that assimilation enables a perceived response-correlated stimulus to match the retained stimulus produced by one or more previously executed instrumental responses, which is as the assimilation theory maintains per the preceding paragraph.
5. An Assimilation Process Enables a Response-Correlated Stimulus
to Be Perceived as Similar to a Retained Stimulus
Produced by a Demonstrator’s Response
As in section 4, a response-correlated stimulus is the stimulus that accompanies the occurrence of a response. Hence an imitated response occurs when an observer produces a response-correlated stimulus that is similar to the perceived stimulus produced by a demonstrator’s response. Thus imitation reveals that a perception becomes similar to another perception. Accordingly, an assimilation theory of imitation is that an assimilation process enables an observer’s response-correlated stimulus to be perceived as similar to the perception of the stimulus produced by a demonstrator’s response. Also, because this perceived stimulus is response-correlated, the imitated response is executed. Similarly, an animal “matches the stimulus produced by his or her own response to the stimulus provided by the demonstrator’s response” (D. L. King, 1979, p. 449).
This section concentrates on delayed imitation. Delayed imitation occurs including by rats (Will, Pallaud, Soczka, & Manikowski, 1974) and dogs (Fugazza & Miklosi, 2014) and by birds of visual stimuli (Akins & Zentall, 1996).
The assimilation theory of imitation for specifically delayed imitation is that an assimilation process enables an observer’s response-correlated stimulus to be perceived as similar to a retained stimulus that the demonstrator’s response produced. Recollecting, the theory of instrumental conditioning is that an assimilation process enables a response-correlated stimulus to be perceived as extremely similar to, that is, match, a retained stimulus produced by one or more previously executed instrumental responses. Hence the two theories are about analogous. Similarly, “The matching involved in delayed imitation appears to be quite similar to the matching that occurs in straightforward instrumental conditioning” (D. L. King, 1979, p. 449). Because the assimilation theory of delayed imitation and the assimilation theory of instrumental conditioning are about analogous, the two theories are supported by Occam Razor’s rule.
An additional reason the assimilation theory of instrumental conditioning is supported is that delayed imitation is most likely more difficult than instrumental conditioning. The “more difficult … matching in delayed imitation definitely supports the possibility that the corresponding matching occurs in straightforward instrumental conditioning” (D. L. King, 1979, p. 449). Delayed imitation is most likely more difficult, because in imitation an observer’s perceived response-correlated stimulus can be fairly dissimilar to the stimulus produced by a demonstrator’s previous response, which should make it more difficult to extract the similarity between them. For example, when a parrot imitated the previous hand waving of a human by moving its wings (Moore, 1992), the parrot’s visual perception of its moving wings was dissimilar to the human’s hand waving in part because a parrot’s wings are in back of its head.
Moreover, an observer’s delayed imitation response is usually obvious. Hence this obviousness increases the probability that the corresponding instrumentally conditined response also occurs via assimilation.
An assimilation theory also explains classical conditioning per section 3. Also, classical conditioning’s occurrence supports the assimilation theory of instrumental conditioning per section 4. The upshot is that related assimilation theories explain classical conditioning, instrumental conditioning, and delayed imitation. Hence these theories are supported via Occam Razor’s rule.
6. An Assimilation Process Enables a Young Animal’s Perceived Fear
to Become Similar to the Perceived Calmness Produced by Stimuli of the Mother
A young animal’s perception of fear is produced by a novel (strange) stimulus and also by a punishing stimulus such as shock (a first conclusion). A young animal’s perception of calmness (absence of fear) is produced by stimuli of a mother or substitute mother (a second conclusion). A young animal’s perception of fear is decreased by stimuli of a mother or substitute mother (a third conclusion).
The third conclusion is explained by an assimilation theory. The theory posits that an assimilation process enables the perceived fear to become similar (assimilate) to the perceived calmness (absence of fear) and this is why the perceived fear is decreased. This theory is supported because it explains the decrease in fear.
The first, second, and third conclusions of two paragraphs past are briefly supported in sequence. Humans, monkeys, dogs, and birds are covered.
The first conclusion is supported because it is known that the perception of fear is produced by a punishing stimulus such as shock. It is also supported because the perception of fear is produced by a novel stimulus per the following. The perception of fear in human infants was produced by a strange room per more crying and autistic behavior and less playing with objects (Arsenian, 1943) and by a stranger per more crying and gaze aversion (Bronson, 1972). The perception of fear in young monkeys was produced by a strange object such as a moving toy bear per crouching and rocking (Harlow & Zimmermann, 1959) and also by a human face per grimacing (Kenney, Mason, & Hill, 1979). The perception of fear in young dogs was produced by a strange quiet human per the dogs’ withdrawal from the human (Freedman, King, & Elliot, 1961) and was also produced by a strange pen per the dogs’ more frequent whining (Elliot & Scott, 1961). The perception of fear in young but not very young birds was produced by a strange frequently moving inanimate object of intermediate size per flight from it (Jaynes, 1957) and per more avoidance, distress calls, and startle responses (Moltz & Stettner, 1961).
The second conclusion is supported by the result that a young animal tends to approach and remain close to a mother when the perception of fear does not occur. This result is supporting because this approach and closeness are presumably due to the perception of calmness. A human infant is known to frequently approach and remain close to the mother when the perception of fear does not occur. Young monkeys frequently made tactual contact with a cloth mother per a measure of hours spent on her when the perception of fear did not occur (Harlow & Zimmermann, 1959). Young dogs did likewise (Igel & Calvin, 1960). Very young birds exposed to an inanimate moving object tended to remain close to it (e.g. Jaynes, 1957).
The third conclusion is supported by the result that young animals that perceive a fear producing stimulus approach, remain close to, and/or contact the mother. The interpretation of this result is that these responses occur because they increase the perception of calmness likewise decrease the perception of fear. When human infants were in a strange room, the presence of the mother reduced crying and autistic behavior and increased playing with objects (Arsenian, 1943). When a stranger was present, infants that were held by their mother infrequently cried and older infants often crawled toward their mother (Bronson, 1972). When young monkeys were shown a novel object, they approached a cloth mother and tactually contacted her more than a wire mother (Harlow & Zimmermann, 1959). Young monkeys with a cloth mother also crouched and rocked less and eventually explored the novel object more. When blasts of air came from a cloth mother, young monkeys made more tactual contact with it (Rosenblum & Harlow, 1963). Young dogs that were both physically punished and rewarded by an experimenter were more likely to remain close to and in contact with the experimenter than young dogs that were only rewarded (Fisher 55, as cited in Rajecki, Lamb, & Obmascher, 1978). Young birds exposed to novel stimuli exhibited less signs of fear when they remained close to their imprinting object (Moltz, 1960, p. 301). Young birds in an unfamiliar open field peeped loudly less frequently when their imprinting object was present (Stettner & Tilds, 1966). Young birds were more likely to follow their imprinting object when they were previously shocked in the same enclosure (Moltz, 1963).
These three conclusions are additionally supported because their validity would result in a survival advantage (D. L. King, 1965). A mother and her young children hardly perceive novel dangerous stimuli such as those produced by a near forest fire, because if they did they would be more likely to perish. Hence the stimuli of the mother decrease her offspring’s perception of fear of novel stimuli that are not dangerous. Thus when her offspring are now adults and they perceive novel stimuli, these stimuli tend to be dangerous. The perception of novel stimuli produces escape and avoidance. Therefore these now adults escape and avoid novel–and dangerous—stimuli. So they are more likely to survive.
7. An Assimilation Process May Enable Contrast
This section provides an account of how an assimilation process may enable the general result that the similarity between the perceived parts of different objects decreases. This decrease in similarity is frequently referred to as contrast, as it will be here. In this section, a perceived part includes both a perceived location and a perceived feature. An example of evidence of contrast is that the perceived location of a line became less similar to the physical location of an adjacent square (Ganz, 1964) (this result occurred when the line and square were less near). The account of how an assimilation process may enable contrast follows.
A single physical element results in multiple neural values that are on the same neural dimension. For example, a point that is low in intensity results in these multiple neural values. The nervous system also computes an average of these multiple neural values. This average is called a neural average. An average is a single event. Hence the neural average is a single neural event. Critically, the neural average results in a single perceived part.
Accordingly, two elements frequently result in two sets of multiple neural values that are on the same neural dimension. Hence two ensuing neural averages that are on the same neural dimension frequently occur. Thus these two neural averages result in two perceived parts. When the two neural averages are on the same neural dimension, the two perceived parts are on the same perceptual dimension.
For exposition, a first element results in two neural values on a neural dimension. Also, these neural values are 0 and 6. Hence the first element results in a neural average of 3. Thus the element-produced first perceived part is 3 when the element occurs individually (alone). Additionally, for exposition, a second element also results in two neural values that are on the same neural dimension. Also, these neural values are 7 and 13. Therefore the second element results in a neural average of 10. Consequently, the element-produced second perceived part is 10 when the element occurs individually. Accordingly, these two perceived parts are on the same perceptual dimension.
In addition, an assimilation process operates on neural values that are on the same neural dimension. Also, this assimilation process operates similarly to a way that assimilation between locations often occurs. This way is that a target assimilates toward a nontarget but hardly vice versa. This way occurred when the duration of the target was briefer than the nontarget (Born et al., 2016), the target was lower in luminance than the nontarget (Rentschler et al., 1975), the target was smaller in size than the nontarget (Ganz, 1964; Prinzmetal, 2005), and the target appeared at about the same time as a mask (Zimmermann, Fink, & Cavanagh, 2013). Hence an assimilation process may change an element’s neural values or it may not.
In accord with the preceding paragraph, when the first and second elements appear at about the same time, the first element’s neural values of 0 and 6 are assumed to assimilate toward (become similar to) the neural values of 7 and 13, whereas the second element’s neural values of 7 and 13 are assumed to be unchanged. The amount of this assimilation is called moderate. This moderate assimilation results in the first element’s neural values of 0 and 6 becoming, for exposition, 2 and 8, respectively.
The first element’s assimilation-produced neural value of 8 is larger than the second element’s unchanged neural value of 7. Critically, consequently the neural value of 8 no longer affects the neural average that the first element results in. The first element’s sole remaining neural value is 2. Hence the first element’s neural average is also 2. Thus the first element produces a first perceived part of 2.
Summing, when the first element appears individually, the first perceived part is 3. Also, when a second element appears at about the same time and hence an assimilation process operates, the first perceived part is 2. Additionally, the second perceived part continues to be 10. Hence the first perceived part of 2 is less similar to the second perceived part of 10 when an assimilation process operates than when it does not. Thus the possibility that an assimilation process enables contrast between perceived parts is supported.
The described assimilation process also brings about assimilation. The same two elements and their neural values when these elements occur individually are used for exposition. Now the first element’s two neural values assimilate toward the second element’s two neural values by a larger extent. Accordingly, the extent of this assimilation is called large. The second element’s two neural values are again unchanged. The large assimilation results in the first element’s neural values of 0 and 6 becoming, for exposition, 4 and 10. The first element’s neural value of 10 is larger than the second element’s neural value of 7. Critically, therefore the first element’s neural value of 10 no longer affects the neural average that the first element results in (analogous to the claim for moderate assimilation). The first element ’s sole remaining neural value is 4. Hence the first element’s neural average is also 4. Thus the first perceived part is 4.
Summing, when the first element appears individually, the first perceived part is 3. Also, when the second element also occurs and when the assimilation is large, the first perceived part is 4. Additionally, the second perceived part continues to be 10. The perceived part of 4 is more similar to the perceived part of 10 than is the perceived part of 3. Hence the first perceived part assimilates toward (becomes similar to) the second perceived part, as to be explained.
How an assimilation process may result in contrast has been indicated.
.
References
Adam, J. J., Paas, F. G. W. C., Ekering, J, & van Loon, E. M. (1995). Spatial localization: tests of a two-process model. Experimental Brain Research, 102, 531-539.
Adler, S. A., Bala, J., & Krauzlis, R J. (2002). Primacy of spatial information in guiding target selection for pursuit and saccades. Journal of Vision, 2(9), 627-644. https://doi.org/10.1167/2.9.5
Aikens, C. K., & Zentall, T. R. (1996). Imitative learning in male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) using the two-action method. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110(3), 316-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.110.3.316
Aitsebaomo, A., & Bedell, H. E. (1992). Psychophysical and saccadic information about direction for briefly presented visual targets. Vision Research, 32(9), 1729-1737. https://doi:10.1016/0042-6989/92
Arsenian, J. M. (1943). Young children in an insecure situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(2), 225-249. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062815
Atkinson, J. & Braddick, O. J. (1989). “Where” and “what” in visual search. Perception, 18(2), 181-189. https://doi.org/10.1068/p1801811
Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1961.) The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist, 16(11), 681-684. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040090
Born, S., Kruger, H. M., Zimmermann, E., & Cavanagh, P. (2016). Compression of space for low visibility probes. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 10, Article 21. https://doi:10.3389/fnsys.2016.00021
Bronson, G. W. (1972). Infants’ reactions to unfamiliar persons and novel objects. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 37(3), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165685
Bucker, B., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2014). Distractors that signal reward attract the eyes. Visual Cognition, 23(1-2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.980483
Cicchini, G. M., Binda, P., Burr, D. C., & Morrone, M. C. (2013). Transient spatiotopic integration across saccadic eye movements mediates visual stability. Journal of Neurophysiology, 109(4), 1117-1125. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00478.2012
Coren, S., & Hoenig, P. (1972). Effect of non-target stimuli upon length of voluntary saccades. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34(2), 499-508. https://doi:10.2466/pms.1972.34.2.499
Davies, P., Davies, G. L., & Bennett, S. (1982). An effective paradigm for conditioning visual perception in human subjects. Perception, 11(6), 663-669. https://doi.org/10.1068/p110663
Donk, M., & Soesman, L. (2010). Salience is only briefly represented: Evidence from probe detection performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 286-302. https://doi:10.1037/a0017605
Elliot, O., & Scott, J. P. (1961). The development of emotional distress reactions to separation, in puppies. Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 99, 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1961.10534386
Foley, J. M., & Richards, W. A. (1978). Binocular depth mixture with non-symmetric disparities. Vision Research, 18(3), 251-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(78)90159-1
Freedman, D. G., King, J. A., & Elliot, O. (1961). Critical period in the social development of dogs. Science, 133, 1016-1017. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.133.3457.1016
Fugazza, C., & Miklosi, A. (2014). Deferred imitation and declarative memory in domestic dogs. Animal Cognition, 17, 237-247. https://doi:10.1007/s10071-013-0656-5
Ganz, L. (1964). Lateral inhibition and the location of visual contours: An analysis of figural after-effects. Vision Research, 4(9-10), 465-481. https://doi:10.1016/0042-6989(84)90137-8
Gogel, W. C. (1965). Equidistance tendency and its consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 64(3), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022197
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional responses in the infant monkey. Science, 130, 421-432. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.130.3373.421
Hazeltine, R. E., Prinzmetal, W., & Elliott, K. (1997). If it’s not there, where is it? Locating illusory conjunctions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(1), 263-277. https://doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.1.263
Igel, G. J., & Calvin, A. D. (1960). The development of affectional responses in infant dogs. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 53(3), 302-305. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049308
Jaynes, J. (1957). Imprinting: The interaction of learned and innate behavior. II. The critical period. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 50(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044716
Jenkins, H. M., & Moore, B. R. (1973). The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20(2), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1973.20-163
Joseph, J. S., & Optican, L. M. (1996). Involuntary attentional shifts due to orientation differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(5), 651-665. https://doi:10.3758/BF03213098
Kenney, M. D., Mason, W. A., & Hill, S. D. (1979). Effects of age, objects, and visual experience on affective responses of rhesus monkeys to strangers. Developmental Psychology, 15(2), 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.15.2.176
King, D. L. (1966). A review and interpretation of some aspects of the infant-mother relationship in mammals and birds. Psychological Bulletin, 65(3), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023010
King, D. L. (1973). An image theory of classical conditioning. Psychological Reports, 33(2), 403-411. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1973.33.2.403
King, D. L. (1974.) An image theory of instrumental conditioning. Psychological Reports, 35(3), 1115-1122. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.35.3.1115
King, D. L. (1979). Conditioning: An image approach. Gardner Press.
King, D. L. (2001). Grouping and assimilation in perception, memory, and conditioning. Review of General Psychology, 5(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.1.23
Le Pelley, M. E., Pearson, D., Griffiths, O., & Beesley, T. (2015). When goals conflict with values: Counterproductive attentional and oculomotor capture by reward-related stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000037
Ludwig, C. J. H., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2002.) Stimulus-driven and goal-driven control over visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(4), 902-912. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.4.902
McSorley, E., Cruickshank, A. G., & Inman, L. (2009). The development of the spatial extent of oculomotor inhibition. Brain Research, 1298, 92-98. https://doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.08.081
Miller, J. M. (1980). Information used by the perceptual and oculomotor systems regarding the amplitude of saccadic and pursuit eye movements. Vision Research, 20(1), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(80)90142-X
Moltz, H., & Stettner, L. J. (1961). The influence of patterned-light deprivation on the critical period for imprinting. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54(3), 279-283. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046991
Moore, B. R. (1992). Avian movement imitation and a new form of mimicry: Tracing the evolution of a complex form of learning. Behaviour, 122(3-4), 231-263. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853992X00525
Mulckhuyse, M., Van der Stigchel, S., & Theeuwes, J. (2009). Early and late modulation of saccade deviations by target distractor similarity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 102(3), 1451-1458. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00068.2009
Peterson, G. B., Ackil, J. E., Frommer, G. P., & Hearst, E. S. (1972). Conditioned approach and contact behavior toward signals for food or brain-stimulation reinforcement. Science, 177(4053), 1009-1011. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4053.1009
Powers, A. R., Mathys, C., & Corlett, P. R. (2017). Pavlovian conditioning-induced hallucinations result from overweighting of perceptual priors. Science, 357(6351), 596–600. https://doi:10.1126/science.aan3458l
Prinzmetal, W. (2005). Location perception: The X-Files parable. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(1), 48-71. https://doi:10.3758/BF03195012
Rajecki, D. W., Lamb, M. E., & Obmascher, P. (1978). Toward a general theory of infantile attachment: A comparative review of aspects of the social bond. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(3), 417-464. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00075816
Rentschler, I., Hilz, R., & Grimm, W. (1975). Processing of positional information in the human visual system. Nature, 253(5491), 444-445. https://doi:10.1038/253444a0
Rosenblum, L. A., & Harlow, H. F. (1963). Approach-avoidance conflict in the mother-surrogate situation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16(2), 561-564. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1963.16.2.561
Smith, K. (1954). ‘Attraction’ in figural after-effects. American Journal of Psychology, 67, 174-176. https://doi.org/10.2307/1418089
Stettner, L. J., & Tilds, B. N. (1966). Effect of presence of an imprinted object on response of ducklings in an open field and when exposed to a fear stimulus. Psychonomic Science, 4(3), 107-108. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03342201
Stiers, M., & Silberberg, A. (1974). Lever-contact responses in rats: Automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22(3), 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.22-497
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., Irwin, D. E., & Zelinsky, G. J. (1999). Influence of attentional capture on oculomotor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1595-1608. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1595
Timberlake, W., Wahl, G., & King, D. A. (1982). Stimulus and response contingencies in the misbehavior of rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8(1), 62-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.8.1.62
Van der Stigchel, S., & Nijboer, T. C. W. (2013). How global is the global effect? The spatial characteristics of saccade averaging. Vision Research, 84, 6-15. https://doi:10.1016/j.visres.2013.03.006
van Heusden, E., Rolfs, M., Cavanagh, P., & Hogendoorn, H. (2018). Motion extrapolation for eye movements predicts perceived motion-induced position shifts. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(38), 8243-8250. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0736-18.2018
van Zoest, W., & Kerzel, D. (2015). The effects of saliency on manual reach trajectories and reach target selection. Vision Research, 113(Pt B), 179-187. https://doi:10.1016/j.visres.2014.11.015
Vishwanath, D., & Kowler, E. (2003). Localization of shapes: Eye movements and perception compared. Vision Research, 43(15), 1637-1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00168-8
Watt, R. J., & Morgan, M. J. (1983). Mechanisms responsible for the assessment of visual location: Theory and evidence. Vision Research, 23(1), 97-109. https://doi:10.1016/0042-6989(83)90046-9
Westheimer, G. (1986). Spatial interaction in the domain of disparity signals in human stereoscopic vision. Journal of Physiology, 370, 619-629.
Westheimer, G., Crist, R. E., Gorski, L., & Gilbert, C. D. (2001). Configuration specifcity in bisection acuity. Vision Research, 41(9), 1133-1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00320-5
Will, B., Pallaud, B., Soczka, M., & Manikowski, S. (1974). Imitation of lever-pressing strategies during the operant conditioning of albino rats. Animal Behaviour, 22(3), 664-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(74)80014-X
Zener, K. (1937). The significance of behavior accompanying conditioned salivary secretion for theories of the conditioned response. American Journal of Psychology, 50, 384-403. https://doi.org/10.2307/1418764