KINDS OF MENTAL IMAGES
[Sidenote: _Visual Imagery_]
When we speak of "images" in connection with Imagination and
Recognition we do not refer merely to mental pictures of things
seen. _Mental images are representations of past mental
experiences of any and every kind._ They include past sensations
of sound, taste, smell, feeling, pain, motion and the other
senses, as well as sensations of sight. One may have a mental
image of the voice of a friend, of the perfume of a flower, just
as he may have mental images of their appearance to the eye.
Indeed, the term "image" is perhaps unfortunately used in this
way, since it must be made to include not only mental pictures in
a visual sense, but all forms of reproductive mental activity.
Our recollection of past experiences may be either full and
distinct or hazy and inadequate. Some persons are entirely unable
to reproduce certain kinds of sensory experiences. Somehow they
are aware of having had these experiences, but they cannot
reproduce them. Every one of us has his own peculiarities.
[Sidenote: _Auditory Imagery_]
This morning I called upon a friend in his office. I was there
but a short time. Yet I can easily call to mind every detail
of the surroundings. I can see the exterior of the building,
its form, size, color, window-boxes with flowers, red tile
roof, formal gardens in the open court, and even many of the
neighboring buildings. I can plainly recall the color of the
carpet on his office floor, the general tone of the paper on the
wall, the size, type and material of his desk, and many other
elements going to make up an almost perfect mental duplicate of
the scene itself. I can even see my friend sitting at his desk,
and can distinctly remember the color, cut and texture of his
clothing and just how he looked when he smiled.
[Sidenote: _Imagery of Taste and Smell_]
Last evening we entertained a number of friends at dinner. One of
the ladies was an accomplished musician, and later in the
evening she delighted us with her exquisite playing upon the
piano. The airs she played were familiar to me. I am fond of
music and I enjoyed her playing. I can sit here today and in
imagination I can see her seated before the piano and remember
just how her hands looked as she fingered the keys. But I find it
difficult to recall the air of the selection or the tones of the
piano. My mental images of the notes as they came from the piano
are faint and uncertain and not nearly so distinct and clear as
my recollection of the scene.
[Sidenote: _Muscular and Tactual Imagery_]
I find it easy to recall the appearance of the food that was
served me for breakfast this morning. I can also faintly imagine
the odor and taste of the coffee and toast, but I find that these
images of taste and smell are not nearly so realistic as my
mental images of what I saw and heard during the course of the
meal.
When I was in college I was very fond of handball and was a
member of the handball team. It has been many years since I
played the game, yet I can distinctly feel the peculiar tension
of the right arm and shoulder muscles that accompanied the
"service." Nor do I feel the slightest difficulty in evoking a
distinct mental image of the prickly sensations that so annoyed
me as a boy when I would first put on woolen underwear in the
fall of the year.
[Sidenote: _Personal Differences in Mental Imagery_]
From these examples, it is apparent that we can form mental
images of past sensations of sight, sound, taste, smell and
feeling, and indeed of every kind, including the muscular or
motor sense and the sense of heat and cold.
But there is the greatest possible difference in individuals in
this respect. Some persons have distinct images of things they
have seen, are good visualizers. Others are weak in this respect,
but have clear auditory images. And so as to all the various
kinds of sensory images.
This is a fact of comparatively recent discovery. The first
proponent of the idea was Fechner, but no statistical work was
done in this line until Galton entered the field, in 1880. In
his "Inquiries into Human Faculties," he says:
[Sidenote: _Investigations of Doctor Galton_]
"To my astonishment, I found that the great majority of the men
of science to whom I first applied protested that mental imagery
was unknown to them, and they looked on me as fanciful and
fantastic in supposing that the words 'mental imagery' really
expressed what I believed everybody supposed them to mean. They
had no more notion of its true nature than a color-blind man, who
has not discerned his defect, has of the nature of color. They
had a mental deficiency of which they were unaware and naturally
enough supposed that those who affirmed they possessed it were
romancing."
[Sidenote: _Investigations of Professor James_]
The investigations of Dr. Galton were continued by Professor
James, of Harvard University. He collected from hundreds of
persons descriptions of their own mental images. The following
are extracts from two cases of distinctly different types. The
one who is a good visualizer says:
"This morning's breakfast-table is both dim and bright; it is dim
if I try to think of it with my eyes closed. All the objects are
clear at once, yet when I confine my attention to any one object
it becomes far more distinct. I have more power to recall color
than any other one thing; if, for example, I were to recall a
plate decorated with flowers I could reproduce in a drawing the
exact tone, etc. The color of anything that was on the table is
perfectly vivid. There is very little limitation to the extent
of my images; I can see all four sides of a room; I can see all
four sides of two, three, four, even more rooms with such
distinctness that if you should ask me what was in any particular
place in any one, or ask me to count the chairs, etc., I could do
it without the least hesitation. The more I learn by heart the
more clearly do I see images of my pages. Even before I can
recite the lines I see them so that I could give them very slowly
word for word, but my mind is so occupied in looking at my
printed image that I have no idea of what I am saying, of the
sense of it, etc. When I first found myself doing this I used to
think it was merely because I knew the lines imperfectly; but I
have quite convinced myself that I really do see an image. The
strongest proof that such is really the fact is, I think, the
following:
"I can look down the mentally seen page and see the words that
commence all the lines, and from any one of these words I can
continue the line. I find this much easier to do if the words
begin as in a straight line than if there are breaks. Example:
Etant fait
Tous .............
A des ............
Que fit ..........
Ceres ............
Avec ...........
Un fleur .........
Comme ..........
(La Fontaine S. IV.)"
The poor visualizer says:
"My ability to form mental images seems, from what I have studied
of other people's images, to be defective, and somewhat peculiar.
The process by which I seem to remember any particular event is
not by a series of distinct images, but a sort of panorama, the
faintest impressions of which are perceptible through a thick
fog--I cannot shut my eyes and get a distinct image of anyone,
although I used to be able to a few years ago, and the faculty
seems to have gradually slipped away. * * * In my most vivid
dreams, where the events appear like the most real facts, I am
often troubled with a dimness of sight which causes the images to
appear indistinct. * * * To come to the question of the
breakfast-table, there is nothing definite about it. Everything
is vague. I cannot say what I see. I could not possibly count the
chairs, but I happen to know that there are ten. I see nothing in
detail. * * * The chief thing is a general impression that I
cannot tell exactly what I do see. The coloring is about the
same, as far as I can recall it, only very much washed out.
Perhaps the only color I can see at all distinctly is that of the
tablecloth, and I could probably see the color of the wall paper
if I could remember what color it was."
This difference between individuals is just as marked in the
matter of ability to form _auditory_ images as in respect to
_visual_ images.
[Sidenote: _Investigations of Professor Scott_]
Thus, Professor Walter Dill Scott, of Northwestern University,
cites the following:
"One student who has strong auditory imagery writes as follows:
'When I think of the breakfast-table I do not seem to have a
clear visual image of it. I can see the length of it, the three
chairs--though I can't tell the color or shape of these--the
white cloth and something on it, but I can't see the pattern of
the dishes or any of the food. I can very plainly hear the rattle
of the dishes and of the silver and above this hear the
conversation, also the other noises, such as a train which passes
every morning while we are at breakfast. Again, in a football
game I distinctly hear the noise, but do not see clearly
anything or anybody. I hear the stillness when everyone is intent
and then the loud cheering. Here I notice the differences of
pitch and tone.'
"I had read that some people were unable to imagine sounds which
they had heard, but it had not impressed me, for I had supposed
that such persons were great exceptions. I was truly surprised
when I found so many of my students writing papers similar to
those from which extracts are here given: 'My mental imagery is
visual, as I seem to see things and not hear, feel or smell them.
The element of sound seems practically never to enter in. When I
think of a breakfast-table or a football game I have a distinct
image. I see colors, but hear no sound.'
[Illustration: A feature in the making of Anderson's Cocoa
The manner in which thousands of pounds of Cocoa beans are daily
roasted
Anderson & Co. N.Y.
THIS ADVERTISEMENT AWAKENS THE WRONG KIND OF MENTAL IMAGES. SEE
TEXT, PAGE 34]
"Another in describing his image of a railroad-train, writes: 'I
am not able to state whether I hear the train or not. I am
inclined to think that it is a noiseless one. It is hard for me
to conceive of the sound of a bell, for instance. I can see the
bell move to and fro, and for an instant seem to hear the ding,
dong; but it is gone before I can identify it. When I try to
conceive of shouts I am like one groping in the dark. I cannot
possibly retain the conception of a sound for any length of
time.'
"Another, who seems to have no vivid images of any kind, writes:
'When I recall the breakfast-table I see it and the persons
around it. The number of them is distinct, for there is only one
of them on each side of the table. But they seem like mere
objects in space. Only when I think of each separately do I
clearly see them. As for the table, all I see is a general
whiteness, interspersed with objects. I hear nothing at all, and
indeed the whole thing is so indistinct it bewilders me when I
think of it. My mental imagery is very vague and hazy, unless I
have previously taken special notice of what I now have an image
of. For instance, when I have an image of a certain person I
cannot tell his particular characteristics unless my attention
was formerly directed to them.'
"Another writes: 'There is no sound in connection with any image.
In remembering, I call up an incident and gradually fill out the
details. I can very seldom recall how anything sounds. One sound
from the play "Robespierre," by Henry Irving, which I heard about
two years ago and which I could recall some time afterward, I
have been unable to recall this fall, though I have tried to do
so. I can see the scene quite perfectly, the position of the
actors and stage setting, even the action of a player who brought
out the sound.'
"Quite a large proportion of persons find it impossible to
imagine motion at all. As they think of a football game, all
the players are standing stock-still; they are as they are
represented in a photograph. They are in the act of running, but
no motion is represented. Likewise, the banners and streamers
are all motionless. They find it impossible to think of such a
thing as motion. Others find that the motions are the most
vivid part of their images. What they remember of a scene is
principally movement.
"One writes: 'When the word "breakfast-table" was given out I saw
our breakfast-table at home, especially the table and the white
tablecloth. The cloth seemed to be the most distinct object. I
can see each one in his place at the table. I can see no color
except that of the tablecloth. The dishes are there, but are very
indistinct. I cannot hear the rattle of the dishes or the voices
very distinctly; the voices seem much louder than the dishes, but
neither are very clear. I can feel the motions which I make
during the breakfast hour. I feel myself come in, sit down and
begin to eat. I can see the motions of those about me quite
plainly. I believe the feeling of motion was the most distinct
feeling I had. When the word "railroad-train" was given I saw the
train very plainly just stopping in front of the depot. I saw the
people getting on the train; these people were very indistinct.
It is their motions rather than the people themselves which I
see. I can feel myself getting on the train, finding a seat, and
sitting down. I cannot hear the noise of the train, but can hear
rather indistinctly the conductor calling the stations. I believe
my mental imagery is more motile (of movement) than anything
else. Although I can see some things quite plainly, I seem to
feel the movements most distinctly.'
"A very few in describing their images of the breakfast-table
made special mention of the taste of the food and of its odor. I
have discovered no one whose prevailing imagery is for either
taste or smell. With very many the image of touch is very vivid.
They can imagine just how velvet feels, how a fly feels on one's
nose, the discomfort of a tight shoe, and the pleasure of
stroking a smooth marble surface."
HOW TO INFLUENCE OTHERS THROUGH MENTAL IMAGERY
[Illustration]