Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,063

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge.

Pylyshyn, Zenon W.·1981·Psychological Review

Abstract

The debate over the nature of mental imagery, especially with respect to the interpretation of recent findings on the transformation of images.” has failed to focus on the crucial differences between the so-called “analogue” and “propositional” approaches. In this paper I attempt to clarify the disagreements by focusing on the alleged spatial nature of images and on recent findings concerned with “rotation” and “scanning” of mental images. It is argued that the main point of disagreement concerns whether certain aspects of the way in which images are transformed should be attributed to intrinsic knowledge-independent properties of the medium in which images are instantiated or the mechanisms by which they are processed, or whether images are typically transformed in certain ways because subjects take their task to be the simulation of the act of witnessing certain real events taking place and therefore use their tacit knowledge of the imaged situation to cause the transformation to proceed as they believe it would have proceeded in reality. The fundamental difference between these t o modes of processing is examined, and certain general difficulties inherent in the analogue account are discussed. It is argued that the tacit knowledge a count is more plausible, at least in the cases examined, because it is a more general account and also because certain empirical results demonstrate that both “mental scanning” and “mental rotation” transformations can be critically influenced by varying the instructions given to subjects and the precise form of the task used and that the form of the influence is explainable in terms of the semantic content of subjects' beliefs and goals—that is, that these operations are cognitively penetrable by subjects' beliefs and goals. Functions that are cognitively penetrable in this sense, it is argued, must be explained, at least in part, by reference to computational cognitive processes whose behavior is governed by goals, beliefs, and tacit knowledge rather than by properties of analogue mechanism.

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 · 10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.16

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 1,063

Metadata

Authors
Pylyshyn, Z. W.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1981-01
Volume
88
Issue
1
Pages
16-45
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2050902711
Cited by
1,063
References
0
FWCI
43.31
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.16
The paper
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.16

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.