Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 13 No. 1 (2023)
Enero-Junio

Articles

Perceptual reversals and creativity: is it possible to develop divergent thinking by modulating bistable perception?

https://doi.org/10.19053/20278306.v13.n1.2023.16064

Published 2023-02-15

  • Guillermo Rodríguez-Martínez

Guillermo Rodríguez-Martínez
Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano, Bogotá, Colombia

Abstract

The purpose of this article was to examine the relations that exist between bistable perception and divergent thinking, taking as a reference that flexibility emerges in both mechanisms, perceptually or cognitively. To achieve the objective, a literary review was carried out using six databases. The keywords used were: bistable perception, perceptual reversals, insight, creative cognition, creative flexibility, perceptual flexibility. 19 articles on the relationship between bistable perception, flexibility and creativity were found. 44 studies regarding both bistable perception and the mechanisms that are involved while cognitive flexibility emerges were considered. 2 reviews on bistable perception were also included. 6 articles related to creativity as a cognitive phenomenon were collated, plus another 3 on perceptual processes. After having made the analysis, it is concluded that the modulating mechanisms of bistable perception have a possibility of being incorporated to develop creativity from perceptual reconfiguration processes that involve flexibility mechanisms.

Keywords

bistable perception;, divergent thinking;, perceptual reversals;, creative cognition

PDF XML

Author Biography

Guillermo Rodríguez-Martínez

Profesional en Publicidad, Doctor en Psicología

References

  1. Ali, S., Moroso, T., & Breazeal, C. (2019). Can children learn creativity from a social robot? Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition, 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3325499 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3325499
  2. Arecchi, F. T. (2007). Physics of cognition: Complexity and creativity. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 146 (1), 205-216.
  3. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2007-00181-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2007-00181-0
  4. Arecchi, F. T. (2010). Dynamics of consciousness: Complexity and creativity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 24 (2), 141. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000026
  5. Baker, D. H., Karapanagiotidis, T., Coggan, D. D., Wailes-Newson, K., & Smallwood, J. (2015). Brain networks underlying bistable perception. NeuroImage, 119, 229-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.053 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.053
  6. Balcetis, E., & Dale, R. (2007). Conceptual set as top-down constraint on visual object identification. Perception, 36, 581-595. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p5678
  7. Barrera, M., & Calderón, L. (2013). Notes for supporting an epistemological neuropsychology: contributions from three perspectives. International Journal of Psychological Research, 6 (2), 107 – 118., 6(2), 107-118. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.692 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.692
  8. Bellemare-Pepin, A., Harel, Y., O’Byrne, J., Mageau, G., Dietrich, A., & Jerbi, K. (2022). Processing Visual Ambiguity in Fractal Patterns: Pareidolia as a Sign of Creativity. Available at SSRN 4073004. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4073004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4073004
  9. Bialystok, E., & Shapero, D. (2005). Ambiguous benefits: the effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science, 8 (6), 595-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00451.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00451.x
  10. Biederman, I., & Ju, G. (1988). Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 38-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90024-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90024-2
  11. Blake, A., & Palmisano, S. (2021). Divergent Thinking Influences the Perception of Ambiguous Visual Illusions. Perception, 50 (5). https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066211000192 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066211000192
  12. Borisyuk, R., Chik, D., & Kazanovich, Y. (2009). Visual perception of ambiguous figures: synchronization based neural models. Biological Cybernetics, 100, 491-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-009-0301-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-009-0301-1
  13. Brouwer, G. J., & van Ee, R. (2006). Endogenous influences on perceptual bistability depend on exogenous stimulus characteristics. Vision Research, 46, 3393-3402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.03.016
  14. Clément, G., & Demel, M. (2012). Perceptual reversal of bi-stable figures in microgravity and hypergravity during parabolic flight. Neuroscience Letters, 507, 143-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2011.12.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2011.12.006
  15. Diana, L., Frei, M., Chesham, A., de Jong, D., Chiffi, K., Nyffeler, T., Bassetti, C. L., Goebel, N., Eberhard-Moscicka, A. K., & Müri, R. M. (2021). A divergent approach to pareidolias—Exploring creativity in a novel way. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 15 (2), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000293 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000293
  16. Doherty, M. J., & Mair, S. (2012). Creativity, ambiguous figures, and academic preference. Perception, 41 (10), 1262-1266. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p7350
  17. Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534550 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534550
  18. Feist, M., & Gentner, D. (2007). Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes. Memory and Cognition, 35, 283-296. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193449 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193449
  19. Freyd, J., & Pantzer, T. (1995). Static patterns moving in the mind. In S. Smith, T. Ward, & R. Finke (Eds), The creative cognition approach, 181-204. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  20. Gale, A., & Findlay, J. (1983). Eye-movement patterns in viewing ambiguous figures. In R. Groner, C. Menz, D. Fisher, & R. Monty (Eds), Eye movements and psychological functions: international views, 145-168. Hillsdale NJ: LEA DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003165538-14
  21. García-Pérez, M. (1989). Visual inhomogeneity and eye movements in multistable perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 397-400. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204995 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204995
  22. García-Pérez, M. (1992). Eye movements and perceptual multistability. In G.E. Stelmach, & P.A. Vroon (Eds), Advances in Psychology (88), 73-109. Amsterdam - London - New York - Tokyo: North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61743-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61743-4
  23. Gijs, B., & van Ee, R. (2006). Endogenous influences on perceptual bistability depend on exogenous stimulus characteristics. Visual Research, 46, 3393-3402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.03.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.03.016
  24. Gilhooly, K. J., & Murphy, P. (2005). Differentiating insight from non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 11 (3), 279-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780442000187 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780442000187
  25. Goolkasian, P., & Woodberry, C. (2010). Priming effects with ambiguous figures. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 168-178.
  26. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.1.168 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.1.168
  27. Gori, S., Giora, E., & Pedersini, R. (2008). Perceptual multistability in figure-ground segregation using motion stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 129, 399-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.004
  28. Grossmann, J. K., & Dobbins, A. C. (2006). Competition in bistable vision is attribute-specific. Vision Research, 46, 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.002
  29. Hsiao, J., Chen, Y., Spence, C., & Yeh, S. (2012). Assessing the effects of audiovisual semantic congruency on the perception of a biestable figure. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 775-787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.02.001
  30. Intaité, M., Koivisto, M., Rukšėnas, O., & Revonsuo, A. (2010). Reversal negativity and bistable stimuli: attention, awareness, or something else? Brain and Cognition, 74, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2010.06.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2010.06.002
  31. Intaité, M., Kovisto, M., & Castelo-Branco, M. (2014). Event-related potential responses to perceptual reversals are modulated by working memory load. Neuropsychologia, 56, 428-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.016
  32. Intaité, M., Noreika, V., Šoliūnas, A., & Falter, C. M. (2013). Interaction of bottom-up and top-down processes in the perception of ambiguous figures. Vision Research, 89, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.06.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.06.011
  33. Kogo, N., Hermans, L., Stuer, D., van Ee, R., & Wagemans, J. (2015). Temporal dynamics of different cases of bi-stable figure-ground perception. Vision Research, 106, 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.10.029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.10.029
  34. Kounios, J., & Beeman, M. (2009). The Aha! moment: The cognitive neuroscience of insight. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (4), 210-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01638.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01638.x
  35. Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2004). Early neural activity in Necker‐cube reversal: Evidence for low‐level processing of a gestalt phenomenon. Psychophysiology, 41 (1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8986.2003.00126.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8986.2003.00126.x
  36. Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2005). The Necker cube - an ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Research, 45, 955-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.006
  37. Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2006). Bistable perception - along the processing chain from ambiguous visual imput to a stable percept. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 345-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.04.007
  38. Kornmeier, J., Hein, C. M., & Bach, M. (2009). Multistable perception: when bottom-up and top-down coincide. Brain and Cognition, 69, 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.06.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.06.005
  39. Laukkonen, R. E., & Tangen, J. M. (2017). Can observing a Necker cube make you more insightful? Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.11.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.11.011
  40. Leopold, D. A., & Logothetis, N. K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (3), 254-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01332-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01332-7
  41. Liu, C.-H., Tzeng, O., Hung, D., Tseng, P., & Juan, C.-H. (2012). Investigation of bistable perception with the "silhouette spinner": Sit still, spin the dancer with your will. Vision Research, 60, 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.03.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.03.005
  42. Long, G., & Toppino, T. (1981). Multiple representations of the same reversible figure: implications for cognitive decisional interpretations. Perception, 10, 231-234. https://doi.org/10.1068/p100231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p100231
  43. Long, G., & Toppino, T. (2004). Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130 (5), 748–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748
  44. Mao, Y., Kanai, R., Ding, C., Bi, T., & Qiu, J. (2020). Temporal variability of brain networks predicts individual differences in bistable perception. Neuropsychologia, 107426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107426 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107426
  45. Marroquín-Ciendúa, F., Rodríguez-Martínez, G., & Rodríguez-Celis, H. G. (2020). Modulación de la percepción biestable: un estudio basado en estimulación multimodal y registros de actividad oculomotora. Tesis Psicológica, 15(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.37511/tesis.v15n1a4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37511/tesis.v15n1a6
  46. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (6), 1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
  47. Meng, M., & Tong, F. (2004). Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision (4), 539 - 551. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.7.2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1167/4.7.2
  48. O'Brien, C., Harris, M., & Higgs, S. (2013). Effects of alcohol on attentional mechanisms involved in figure reversals. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 28 (5), 484-494. https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2337 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2337
  49. Okazaki, M., Kaneko, Y., Yumoto, M., & Arima, K. (2008). Perceptual change in response to a bistable picture increases neuromagnetic beta-band activities. Neuroscience Research, 61, 319-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2008.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2008.03.010
  50. Patel, L. N., & Holt, P. O. (2000). Modelling visual complexity using geometric primitives. Orlando: Proceedings, Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.24.2471&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  51. Patrick, J., & Ahmed, A. (2014). Facilitating representation change in insight problems through training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40 (2), 532. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034304
  52. Pressnitzer, D., & Hupé, J.-M. (2006). Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization. Current Biology (16), 1351-1357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.054 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.054
  53. Qiu, J., Dongtao, W., Hong, L., Caiyun, Y., Ting, W., & Quinglin, Z. (2009). The vace-face illusion seen by the brain: An event-related brain potentials study. International Journal of Psychopshysiology, 74, 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.07.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.07.006
  54. Riquelme, H. (2002). Can people creative in imagery interpret ambiguous figures faster than people less creative in imagery? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36 (2), 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01059.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01059.x
  55. Rock, I., Hall, S., & Davis, J. (1994). Why do ambiguous figures reverse? Acta Psychologica, 87, 33-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(94)90065-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(94)90065-5
  56. Rodríguez, G. (2016). La reconfiguración perceptual de imágenes aplicada al desarrollo del pensamiento divergente en el aula de clase. Revista Q, 11 (21), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.18566/revistaq.v11n21.a05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18566/revistaq.v11n21.a05
  57. Rodríguez, G., & Castillo, H. (2018a). Tareas de búsqueda visual: modelos, bases neurológicas, utilidad y prospectiva. Universitas Psychologica, 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-1.tbvm DOI: https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-1.tbvm
  58. Rodríguez, G., & Castillo, H. (2018b). Bistable perception: neural bases and usefulness in psychological research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 11 (2), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.3375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.3375
  59. Rodríguez-Martínez, G., Castillo-Parra, H., Rosa, P. J., & Marroquín-Ciendúa, F. (2021). Ocular fixations modulate audiovisual semantic congruency when standing in an upright position. Suma Psicológica, 28 (1), 43-51. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2021.v28.n1.6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2021.v28.n1.6
  60. Rodríguez-Martínez, G., Marroquín-Ciendúa, F., Rosa, P., & Castillo-Parra (2022). Perceptual reversals and time-response analyses within the scope of decoding a bistable image. Interdisciplinaria: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 39 (1), 257-273. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2022.39.1.16 DOI: https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2022.39.1.16
  61. Romo, M. (1986). Treinta y cinco años del pensamiento divergente: teoría de la creatividad de Guilford. Estudios de Psicología, 7 (27-28), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.1986.10821474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.1986.10821474
  62. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
  63. Sandberg, K., Barnes, G. R., Bahrami, B., Kanai, R., Overgaard, M., & Rees, G. (2014). Distinct MEG correlates of conscious experience, perceptual reversals and stabilization during binocular rivalry. Neuroimage, 100, 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.023
  64. Schauer, G., Kanai, R., & Brascamp, J. W. (2016). Parietal theta busrs TMS: Functional fractionation observed during bistable perception not evident in attention tasks. Consciousness and Cognition (40), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.01.002
  65. Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S.M. Smith, T.B. Ward, & R.A. Finke (Eds). The creative cognition approach, 97-133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  66. Smith, E., Grabowecky, M., & Susuki, S. (2007). Auditory-visual crossmodal integration in perception of face gender. Current Biology, 17, 1680-1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.08.043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.08.043
  67. Sterzer, P., Kleinschmidt, A., & Rees, G. (2009). The neural bases of multistable perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (7), 310-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.006
  68. Taranu, M., & Loesche, F. (2017). Spectres of Ambiguity in Divergent Thinking and Perceptual Switching. Avant. The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard, 8, 121-133. htpps://doi.org/ 10.26913/80s02017.0111.0012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26913/80s02017.0111.0012
  69. Taranu, M., Wimmer, M. C., Ross, J., Farkas, D., van Ee, R., Winkler, I., & Denham, S. L. (2019). Children’s perception of visual and auditory ambiguity and its link to executive functions and creativity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.03.010
  70. Van Loon, A. M., Knapen, T., Scholte, H. S., St. John-Saaltink, E., Donner, T. H., & Lamme, V. A. (2013). GABA Shapes the Dynamics of Bistable Perception. Current Biology, 23, 823-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.067
  71. Ward, T. B. (2007). Creative cognition as a window on creativity. Methods, 42 (1), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.002
  72. Weilnhammer, V., Ludwig, K., Sterzer, P., & Hesselmann, G. (2014). Revisiting the Lissajous figure as a tool to study bistable perception. Vision Research, 98, 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.03.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.03.013
  73. Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Gilhooly, K., & Georgiou, G. (2011). Creativity and ease of ambiguous figural reversal. British Journal of Psychology, 102 (3), 615-622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02031.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02031.x
  74. Wu, X., Gu, X., & Zhang, H. (2019). The facilitative effects of ambiguous figures on creative solution. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53 (1), 44-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.161 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.161
  75. Yamamoto, S., & Yamamoto, M. (2006). Effects of the gravitational vertical on the visual perception of reversible figures. Neuroscience Research (55), 218-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2006.02.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2006.02.014

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.