Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

How visual imagery interferes with vision.

C Craver-Lemley1, A Reeves

  • 1Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Psychological Review
|October 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Management and biosecurity practices by small to medium egg producers in Scotland.

British poultry science·2021
Same author

Strategies for screening young stock for antibodies - optimising numbers to test, cut-points, & predictive values for bovine viral diarrhoea virus.

Scientific reports·2018
Same author

British Escherichia coli O157 in Cattle Study (BECS): to determine the prevalence of E. coli O157 in herds with cattle destined for the food chain.

Epidemiology and infection·2017
Same author

Gender violence, poverty and HIV infection risk among persons engaged in the sex industry: cross-national analysis of the political economy of sex markets in 30 European and Central Asian countries.

HIV medicine·2017
Same author

Fit-for-work or fit-for-unemployment? Does the reassessment of disability benefit claimants using a tougher work capability assessment help people into work?

Journal of epidemiology and community health·2015
Same author

'First, do no harm': are disability assessments associated with adverse trends in mental health? A longitudinal ecological study.

Journal of epidemiology and community health·2015
Same journal

Perception and action as one: Re-integrating research on human action through event files.

Psychological review·2026
Same journal

Associative learning explains "intuitive statistics" in animals.

Psychological review·2026
Same journal

A reciprocal model of practice and skill: Navigating between dropout and expertise.

Psychological review·2026
Same journal

The relative psychometric function: A general analysis framework for relating psychological processes.

Psychological review·2026
Same journal

A taxonomy of discriminatory behavior.

Psychological review·2026
Same journal

Extreme-value signal detection theory for recognition memory: The parametric road not taken.

Psychological review·2026
See all related articles

Mental visual imagery interferes with vision, a phenomenon known as the Perky effect. This study finds sensory interference, not optical or attentional factors, explains this visual disruption.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Visual Perception
  • Neuroscience

Background:

  • The Perky effect (1910) describes how mental visual imagery can interfere with actual vision.
  • Previous explanations have considered optical, sensory, perceptual, attentional, and response bias factors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the underlying mechanisms of the Perky effect.
  • To differentiate between various potential explanations for visual interference caused by mental imagery.

Main Methods:

  • Acuity was measured in university students using target lines presented with and without mental images of lines.
  • Various factors were systematically controlled and assessed, including optics (fixation, pupil size, accommodation), response bias, global attention, and perceptual effects (assimilation and masking).

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Optical factors, response bias, global attention, perceptual assimilation, and perceptual masking did not adequately explain the Perky effect.
  • Local attention played a limited role, with the effect being reduced but not eliminated in divided attention conditions, particularly for foveal targets.
  • The Perky effect was primarily attributed to sensory interference, where mental images mimic a reduction in the energy of the actual visual target.

Conclusions:

  • The Perky effect is best explained by sensory interference, where mental imagery directly impacts the visual sensory processing.
  • Attentional and perceptual explanations are insufficient to account for the observed visual disruption caused by mental imagery.