ARGUMENTS CONCERNING REPRESENTATIONS FOR MENTAL-IMAGERY
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING REPRESENTATIONS FOR MENTAL-IMAGERY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0033-295x.85.4.249
复制
发表时间：
1978-01-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
ANDERSON, JR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
ANDERSON, JR
关于视觉意象的图像表征的命题的论证，在很大程度上采取了攻击图像表征的逻辑连贯性的形式。这些攻击都是无效的，因为人们可以开发一个连贯的双代码模型，涉及图片和口头（非命题）表示。另一方面，那些声称支持图像表征的经验论证，却未能将这种表征与命题表征区分开来。有人认为，失败的反和亲图像的论点源于一个根本的不确定性，在决定问题的表征。结果表明，广泛的类不同的表示，特别是命题与双代码模型，可以产生相同的行为预测。除了行为预测之外，诸如简约性和效率之类的标准可以产生对表示的进一步约束;并且，特别地，可以确定是否存在2个代码，一个用于视觉信息，一个用于言语信息，或者是否存在单个抽象代码。它的结论是，除非决定性的生理数据，这将是不可能的，以建立内部表示是否是图形或命题。(69参考）（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2016阿帕，保留所有权利）
The argument for a propositional over a pictorial representation for visual imagery has largely taken the form of an attack on the logical coherence of pictorial representations. These attacks have not been valid since one can develop a coherent dual-code model involving pictorial and verbal (nonpropositional) representations. On the other hand, empirical demonstrations that are claimed to support pictorial representations fail to discriminate such representations from propositional ones. It is argued that the failure of the anti-and pro-pictorial arguments stems from a fundamental indeterminancy in deciding issues of representations. It is shown that wide classes of different representations, and in particular propositional vs dual-code models, can be made to yield identical behavior predictions. Criteria such as parsimony and efficiency in addition to prediction of behavior may yield further constraints on representation; and, in particular, it may be possible to establish whether there are 2 codes, one for visual information and one for verbal, or whether there is a single abstract code. It is concluded that barring decisive physiological data, it will not be possible to establish whether an internal representation is pictorial or propositional.(69 ref)(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)