Abstract
Introduction. The focus of the problem of advantages and disadvantages of ambiguity is the question of whether it facilitates or hinders information processing. The relevance of the problem is due to the inconsistency of the available experimental data. Experiments do not take into account whether ambiguity is aware or unaware, but recording it could clarify the problem at hand. Our approach implies separating ambiguity that is both aware and unaware. In our study, we test the idea that the presence of unaware meanings provides greater concreteness of aware meanings compared to unambiguous stimuli. Methods. Stimuli were ambiguous figures. Subjects (n = 92) sorted two sets of cards, each containing one ambiguous figure, into a convenient number of classes. The operationalized hypothesis is that the classes into which images with unaware ambiguity fall will include fewer items than classes without ambiguous figures. Results. Intergroup comparisons revealed the differences expected according to the hypothesis: classes with ambiguous figures were more sparsely populated than classes with unambiguous versions of the same figures. Discussion. Rather than interpreting the result in favor of the disadvantages of ambiguity, we explain it by narrowing the equivalence range of an ambiguity stimulus, allowing the stimulus to be instantiated in an optimal way. The important role of unaware meanings in the process of interpreting perceived information is confirmed.
References
Аллахвердов, В. М. (2021). Собрание сочинений: в 7 т.: Т. 7. Таинственная прелесть сознания: Беседы о вечных проблемах, или Приглашение к абсурду. Владимир Даль.
Карпинская, В. Ю. (2016). Психофизика перцептивных иллюзий. Санкт-Петербург.
Соловьев, В. Д., Вольская, Ю. А., Ахтямов, Р. Б. (2023). Спектр ассоциаций к русским абстрактным и конкретным существительным. Научный результат. Вопросы теоретической и прикладной лингвистики, 9(1), 153–173. URL: http://rrlinguistics.ru/journal/article/3069
Филиппова, М. Г., Аллахвердов, В. М. (2020). Конкретизация выбранного смысла в процессе восприятия двойственных изображений. Психология. Журнал высшей школы экономики, 17(2), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2020-2-356-366
Филиппова, М. Г., Дорофеева, Л. А. (2023). Влияние эмоциональной оценки двойственного логотипа на последействие его фигуры и фона. Психология. Журнал высшей школы экономики, 2(2), 386–389. URL: https://psy-journal.hse.ru/2023-20-2/842743987.html
Филиппова, М. Г., Костина, Д. И., Мезенцева, М. П. (2018). Динамика узнавания незамеченных значений двойственных изображений. Психологический журнал, 39(3), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0205959218030042
Филиппова, М. Г., Чернов, Р. В. (2022). Влияние неосознаваемой многозначности на конкретность осознанного значения. Психология познания. Сборник материалов Всероссийской научной конференции памяти Дж. С. Брунера. Общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Филигрань».
Филиппова, М. Г., Чернов, Р. В., Горбунов, И. А. (2023). Незамеченные, но не забытые: ЭЭГ-корреляты прайминг-эффектов двойственных изображений. Журнал высшей нервной деятельности им. И. П. Павлова, 73(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0044467723030061
Allakhverdov, V. M., Filippova, M. G., Gershkovich, V. A., Karpinskaya, V. Y., Scott, T. V., & Vladykina, N. P. (2019). Consciousness, learning, and control: On the path to a theory. In A. Cleermans, V. Allakhverdov, & M. Kuvaldina (Eds.). Implicit Learning: 50 Years On. Routledge.
Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2011). Inducing homonymy effects via stimulus quality and (not) nonword difficulty: Implications for models of semantic ambiguity and word recognition. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.). Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Borghi, A. M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., & Tummolini, L. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 263–292. http://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089
Callaghan, C. O., Kveraga, K., Shine, J. M., Adams, R. B., & Bar, M. (2017). Predictions penetrate perception: Converging insights from brain, behaviour and disorder. Consciousness and Cognition, 47, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.05.003
D'Angelo, M. C., Thomson, D. R., Tipper, S. P., & Milliken, B. (2016). Negative priming 1985 to 2015: A measure of inhibition, the emergence of alternative accounts, and the multiple process challenge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(10), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1173077
Dehaene, S. & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and Theoretical Approaches to Conscious Processing. Neuron, 70, 200–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018
Filippova, M. G., Shcherbakova, O. V., & Shtyrov, Y. Y. (2020). It is Not What You Think it is: Erp Correlates of Verbal And Non-Verbal Ambiguity Processing. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology, 50, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-020-00902-5
Filippova, M. G. (2011). Does Unconscious Information Affect Cognitive Activity: A Study Using Experimental Priming. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.2
Frings, C., Schneider, K. K., & Fox, E. (2015). The Negative Priming Paradigm: an Update and Implications for Selective Attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1577–1597. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0841-4
Hargreaves, I. S., Pexman, P. M., Pittman, D. J., & Goodyear, B. G. (2011). Tolerating ambiguity: Ambiguous words recruit the left inferior frontal gyrus in absence of a behavioral effect. Experimental Psychology, 58(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000062
Haro, J., & Ferré, P. (2018). Semantic ambiguity: Do multiple meanings inhibit or facilitate word recognition? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(3), 679–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9554-3
Haro, J., Demestre, J., Boada, R., & Ferré, P. (2017). Erp and Behavioral Effects Of Semantic Ambiguity In A Lexical Decision Task. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 44, 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.06.001
Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and Relatedness Effects In Semantic Tasks: Are They Due To Semantic Coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.04.001
Hoffman, P., & Woollams, A. M. (2015). Opposing Effects of Semantic Diversity In Lexical and Semantic Relatedness Decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(2), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038995
Kawamoto, A. H. (1993). Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), 474–516. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1026
Kellner, C., Le Quement. M. T., & Riener, G. (2022). Reacting to ambiguous messages: An experimental analysis. Games and Economic Behavior, 136, 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2022.09.007
Kornmeier, J., & Bach, M. (2014). EEG correlates of perceptual reversals in Boring's ambiguous old/young woman stimulus. Perception, 43, 950–962. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7741
Leinenger, M., Myslín, M., Rayner, K., & Levy, R. (2017). Do resource constraints affect lexical processing? Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.09.002
Maciejewski, G., & Klepousniotou, E. (2020). Disambiguating the ambiguity disadvantage effect: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for semantic competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(9), 1682–1700. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000842
Maciejewski, G., Rodd, J. M., Mon-Williams, M., & Klepousniotou, E. (2019). The cost of learning new meanings for familiar words. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(2), 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1642500
Peterson, M. A., Cacciamani, L., Mojica, A. J., & Sanguinetti, J. L. (2012). Meaning can be accessed for the ground side of a figure. Journal of Gestalt Theory, 34(3), 297–314.
Rodd, J. M. (2018). Lexical ambiguity. In S.A. Rueschemeyer & M. G. Gaskell (Eds.), Spoken word production.
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_4
Tal, А., & Bar, M. (2014). The proactive brain и the fate of dead hypotheses. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 8(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fncom.2014.00138
Tang, L. (2020). Ambiguity and context learning in signalling games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 31(8), 1979–2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exaa069
Tang, L. (2022). Ambiguity Advantage Under Meaning Activation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 31, 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-021-09349-4
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Margarita G. Filippova, Natalia V. Andriyanova, Roman V. Chernov