Skip to main content Accessibility help

Seeing and thinking: Foundational issues and empirical horizons

  • Chaz Firestone (a1) and Brian J. Scholl (a1)


The spectacularly varied responses to our target article raised big-picture questions about the nature of seeing and thinking, nitty-gritty experimental design details, and everything in between. We grapple with these issues, including the ready falsifiability of our view, neuroscientific theories that allow everything but demand nothing, cases where seeing and thinking conflict, mental imagery, the free press, an El Greco fallacy fallacy, hallucinogenic drugs, blue bananas, subatomic particles, Boeing 787s, and the racial identities of geometric shapes.

  • View HTML



Hide All
Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. (2006) See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:612–25.
Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. (2010) Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science 21:147–52.
Bhalla, M. & Proffitt, D. R. (1999) Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25:1076–96.
Bruner, J. S. & Goodman, C. C. (1947) Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 42:3344.
Carandini, M. (2012) From circuits to behavior: A bridge too far? Nature Neuroscience 15:507509.
Carrasco, M. (2011) Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research 51:1484–525.
Chen, J. & Proctor, R. W. (2012) Influence of category identity on letter matching: Conceptual penetration of visual processing or response competition? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 74:716–29.
Chen, Y.-C. & Scholl, B. J. (2014) Seeing and liking: Biased perception of ambiguous figures consistent with the “inward bias” in aesthetic preferences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 21:1444–51.
Chen, Y.-C. & Scholl, B. J. (2016) The perception of history: Seeing causal history in static shapes induces illusory motion perception. Psychological Science 27:923–30.
Cole, S. & Balcetis, E. (2013) Sources of resources: Bioenergetic and psychoenergetic resources influence distance perception. Social Cognition 31:721–32.
Darwin, C. J. (1997) Auditory grouping. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1(9):327–33.
Deroy, O. (2013) Object-sensitivity versus cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Studies 162:87107.
Dieter, K. C., Hu, B., Knill, D. C., Blake, R. & Tadin, D. (2014) Kinesthesis can make an invisible hand visible. Psychological Science 25(1):6675. doi:10.1177/0956797613497968.
Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K. & Waymouth, S. (2009) Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16:964–69.
Durgin, F. H., DeWald, D., Lechich, S., Li, Z. & Ontiveros, Z. (2011a) Action and motivation: Measuring perception or strategies? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18(6):1077–82.
Durgin, F. H., Klein, B., Spiegel, A., Strawser, C. J. & Williams, M. (2012) The social psychology of perception experiments: Hills, backpacks, glucose, and the problem of generalizability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38:1582–95.
Emberson, L. L. & Amso, D. (2012) Learning to sample: Eye tracking and fMRI indices of changes in object perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24:2030–42.
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2014a) “Please tap the shape, anywhere you like”: Shape skeletons in human vision revealed by an exceedingly simple measure. Psychological Science 25(2):377–86. Available at:
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2014b) “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science 25:3846.
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2015a) Can you experience top-down effects on perception? The case of race categories and perceived lightness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22:694700.
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2015b) Enhanced visual awareness for morality and pajamas? Perception vs. memory in ‘top-down’ effects. Cognition 136:409–16.
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2015c). When do ratings implicate perception versus judgment?: The “overgeneralization test” for top-down effects. Visual Cognition 23(9–10):1217–26.
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. (2016) “Moral perception” reflects neither morality nor perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20:7576.
Fodor, J. A. (1974) Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese 28:97115.
Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014) The moral pop-out effect: Enhanced perceptual awareness of morally relevant stimuli. Cognition 132:2229.
Gantman, A. P. & Van Bavel, J. J. (2015) Moral perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19:631–33.
Gao, T. & Scholl, B. J. (2011) Chasing vs. stalking: Interrupting the perception of animacy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37:669–84.
Gao, T., McCarthy, G. & Scholl, B. J. (2010) The wolfpack effect: Perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychological Science 21:1845–53.
Garn, S. M., Leonard, W. R. & Hawthorne, V. M. (1986) Three limitations of the body mass index. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 44:996–97.
Gigerenzer, G. (2004) Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics 33:587606.
Hansen, T., Olkkonen, M., Walter, S. & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2006) Memory modulates color appearance. Nature Neuroscience 9(11):1367–68. Available at:
Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Anglin, S. M., Stevens, S. T. & Duarte, J. L. (2016) Interpretations and methods: Towards a more effectively self-correcting social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66:116–33.
Kanizsa, G. (1985) Seeing and thinking. Acta Psychologica 59:2333.
Kanizsa, G. & Gerbino, W. (1982) Amodal completion: Seeing or thinking? In: Organization and representation in perception, ed. Beck, J., pp. 167–90. Erlbaum.
Klemfuss, N., Prinzmetal, W. & Ivry, R. B. (2012) How does language change perception: A cautionary note. Frontiers in Psychology 3:Article 78. Available at:
Kominsky, J. & Scholl, B. J. (2016) Retinotopic adaptation reveals multiple distinct categories of causal perception. Journal of Vision 16(12):333.
Levin, D. T. & Banaji, M. R. (2006) Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135:501–12.
Levin, D. T., Takarae, Y., Miner, A. G. & Keil, F. (2001) Efficient visual search by category: Specifying the features that mark the difference between artifacts and animals in preattentive vision. Perception and Psychophysics 63:676–97.
Long, G. M. & Toppino, T. C. (2004) Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin 130:748–68.
Lupyan, G. (2012) Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology 3:Article 54.
Lupyan, G. & Spivey, M. J. (2008) Perceptual processing is facilitated by ascribing meaning to novel stimuli. Current Biology 18:R410–12.
Lupyan, G., Thompson-Schill, S. L. & Swingley, D. (2010) Conceptual penetration of visual processing. Psychological Science 21(5):682–91.
Lupyan, G. & Ward, E. J. (2013) Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(35):14196–201. Available at:
Macpherson, F. (2012) Cognitive penetration of colour experience: Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(1):2462.
McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–48.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Crawford, L. E. & Ahlvers, W. J. (2007) When “light” and “dark” thoughts become light and dark responses: Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion 7(2):366–76. Available at:
Most, S. B. (2013) Setting sights higher: Category-level attentional set modulates sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Research 77:139–46.
Most, S. B., Simons, D. J., Scholl, B. J., Jimenez, R., Clifford, E. & Chabris, C. F. (2001) How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Science 12(1):917.
Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E. R. & Simons, D. J. (2005b) What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review 112:217–42.
Most, S. B. & Wang, L. (2011) Dissociating spatial attention and awareness in emotion-induced blindness. Psychological Science 22:300305.
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (2000) Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:299370.
Orne, M. T. (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist 17:776–83.
Peterson, M. A. & Gibson, B. S. (1991) Directing spatial attention within an object: Altering the functional equivalence of shape descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 17:170–82.
Pinna, B. & Brelstaff, G. J. (2000) A new visual illusion of relative motion. Vision Research 40:2091–96.
Pylyshyn, Z. (1999) Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(3):341–65.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002) Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25:157238.
Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B. & Carrell, T. D. (1981) Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science 212:947–49.
Rolfs, M., Dambacher, M. & Cavanagh, P. (2013) Visual adaptation of the perception of causality. Current Biology 23(3):250–54. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.12.017.
Schnall, S., Zadra, J. R. & Proffitt, D. R. (2010) Direct evidence for the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical slant. Perception 39:464–82.
Scholl, B. J. (2007) Object persistence in philosophy and psychology. Mind and Language 22:563–91.
Scholl, B. J. & Gao, T. (2013) Perceiving animacy and intentionality: Visual processing or higher-level judgment? In: Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention, ed. Rutherford, M. D. & Kuhlmeier, V. A., pp. 197230. MIT Press.
Scholl, B. J. & Nakayama, K. (2002) Causal capture: Contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychological Science 13:493–98.
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y. & Shimojo, S. (2000) Illusions: What you see is what you hear. Nature 408:788.
Stefanucci, J. K. & Geuss, M. N. (2009) Big people, little world: The body influences size perception. Perception 38:1782–95.
Taylor-Covill, G. A. H. & Eves, F. F. (2016) Carrying a biological “backpack”: Quasi-experimental effects of weight status and body fat change on perceived steepness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(3):331–38.
Toppino, T. C. (2003) Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control. Perception and Psychophysics 65:1285–95.
Turk-Browne, N. B., Junge, J. A. & Scholl, B. J. (2005) The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134:552–64.
Ward, E. J. & Scholl, B. J. (2015) Inattentional blindness reflects limitations on perception, not memory: Evidence from repeated failures of awareness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22:722–27.
Warren, W. H. (1984) Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10:683703.
Wesp, R., Cichello, P., Gracia, E. B. & Davis, K. (2004) Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size. Perception and Psychophysics 66:1261–67.
Wesp, R. & Gasper, J. (2012) Is size misperception of targets simply justification for poor performance? Perception 41:994–96.
Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R. & Epstein, W. (2004) Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception 33:577–90.
Witt, J. K. & Sugovic, M. (2010) Performance and ease influence perceived speed. Perception 39(10):1341–53. doi:10.1068/P6699.
Witt, J. K. & Sugovic, M. (2013b) Response bias cannot explain action-specific effects: Evidence from compliant and non-compliant participants. Perception 42:138–52.
Zeimbekis, J. (2013) Color and cognitive penetrability. Philosophical Studies 165:167–75.


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed