著者

柿崎 祐一

出版者

甲南女子大学

雑誌

甲南女子大学研究紀要 = Konan Women's University researches (ISSN:03864405)

巻号頁・発行日

no.24, pp.29-45, 1988-03-20

著者

柿崎 祐一

出版者

公益社団法人 日本心理学会

雑誌

心理学研究 (ISSN:00215236)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.20, no.2, pp.24-32, 1950 (Released:2010-07-16)

参考文献数

3

被引用文献数

6 6

---

PROBLEM. The objective of these experiments is to determine the effects of preceding retinal stimulations upon the dominancy of one figare in the binocular rivalry. First, we begin with the conditions where, preeeding the rivalry of two antagonistic figures, one of them is given to one or both eyes.APPARATUS. and PROCDURE. Two circular light patches (1°15′ in visual angle) with five parallel odlique lines are exposed one to each eye on a sort of haploscope. In binoculrr image these two sets of lines are at right angles to each other and here riv lry can be observed. The duration of the appearance of each figure in seconds (t) and the nuuber of the appearance (n) are noted by two electric keys manipulated by Os' own hands. The observations which last 90 seconds with 30 seconds pause are repeated several times in direct s quence.The dominancy of one figure over the other is defined by ΔΔr=(tr/tl)2⋅(nl/nr) where r amd l refer to right and left respectively. If Δr>1 the right figure is dominant, and vice versa.In the following experiments, the figure applied to the left eye has always the same lines_??_ (in reality five lines), and to the right_??_. The condition is schematized as (L_??_·R_??_) in what follows.EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS.1. Precedi g the cnndition of rivalry we stimulated (a) the left eye with_??_, or (b) the right eye with_??_.The schema: (a) [L_??_·-]→[L_??_·R_??_](b) [-·R_??_]→[L_??_·R_??_]In one O out of 5, the figure which preceded showed dominancy in rivalry, but in the other four cases the opposite figure became dominant more or lets significantly. In the following experiments we omitted the first O, in view of the main purpose of our investigation, and also of his personal incov nience. Hence the problem of the individual differenee in this respect is posiponed to future investigation.2. To the remaining Os., a mere ci cular light patch was given to one eye as the preceding stimulus. Under this condition also, the figure given to the other eye showed dominancy, but the effect in this case is not so sigeificant as in 1.3. The direct comparison of the effects manifested in 1. and 2. The results were not clear enough.4. The same figure was given to both eyes as the preceding stimulus. Namely:(a) [L_??_·R_??_]→[L_??_·R_??_](b) [L_??_·R_??_]→[L_??_·R_??_]The results showed the dominance of R_??_in (a). and of L_??_in (b). From these results cults we may conclude that the effect shown in 1 was not only the effect of mere light and of the figure upon retina, but was also influenced by the figurality i.e. the direction per se of oblique lines.3. Here we gave the antagonistic figures as the preceding stimulus. Namely:(a) [L_??_·-]→[L_??_·R_??_](b) [-·R_??_]→[L_??_·R_??_]The results were not clear. Perhaps, the effect of light as the preceding stimulus (shown in 2) and that of the figure (shown in 1 and 3) had canceled each other.6. To one eye the preceding stimulus was the figure and to the othermere circular light patch. Namely:(a) [L_??_·RO]→[L_??_·R_??_](b) [LO·R_??_]→[L_??_·R_??_]In (a) R_??_ was dominant while in (b) L_??_ was dominant. So the effect of figurality is greater than tha of mere light.CONCLUSION. We may conclude from these res lts that in the field of binocular rivalry, a preceding stimulation has an effect in point of its figurality. In our Os, it manifest itself as an effect which makes the figure antagonistic to the preceding one dominant in succeeding rivalry.