Answer to Question 1
1 . Implicit reference frame hint. Participants first were shown another ambiguous figure involving realignment of the reference frame.
2 . Explicit reference frame hint. Participants were asked to modify the reference frame by considering either the back of the head of the animal they had already seen as the front of the head of some other animal (considered a conceptual hint) or the front of the thing you were seeing as the back of something else (considered an abstract hint).
3 . Attentional hint. Participants were directed to attend to regions of the figure where realignments or reconstruals were to occur.
4 . Construals from good parts. Participants were asked to construe an image from parts determined to be good (according to both objective geometrical and empirical interrater agreement criteria), rather than from parts determined to be bad (according to similar criteria).
Answer to Question 2
Chambers and Reisberg had showed ambiguous figures to research participants and then asked them to identify alternative interpretations based on their memory of the figure. When participants had trouble coming up with alternatives, the experimenters offered hints. If that did not help, the experimenters suggested that participants draw the figures out from their memories. Even then, they had trouble, suggesting that propositional code may override the imaginal code in some circumstances.
Relation between form, particular objects, and images in Plato’s Line.
With the research technique called brainbow, each neuron is labeled with a different color, ...
Nutrition-related research findings are often lead stories in newspapers, magazines, and on websites
Scientists do research in the laboratory and in the field
Describe the Conceptual Forecasting Framework in your own words.
IMAGES THAT DESCRIBE CELLULAR PARTS