Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intuitions and introspections about imagery: the role of imagery experience in shaping an investigator's theoretical views

Reisberg, Daniel, Pearson, David G., Kosslyn, Stephen M.·2003·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.858
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Early in a scientific debate, before much evidence has accumulated, why are some scientists inclined toward one position and other scientists toward the opposite position? We explore this issue with a focus on scientists' views of the ‘imagery debate’ that unfolded in Cognitive Science during the late 1970s and early 1980s. We examine the possibility that, during the early years of this debate, researchers' views were shaped by their own conscious experiences with imagery. Consistent with this suggestion, a survey of 150 psychologists, philosophers, and neuroscientists showed that those who experienced their own visual imagery as vivid and picture‐like recall being more sympathetic in 1980 to the view that, in general, images are picture‐like. Similarly, those who have vivid images and who regularly use their images in cognition were more inclined to believe that issues of image vividness deserve more research. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.858

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Reisberg, D., Pearson, D. G., & Kosslyn, S. M.
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11-21
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
147-160
ISSN
  • 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.858
OpenAlex
W2051638687
Cited by
340
References
36
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.