Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Mental visual imagery interferes with vision: the Perky (1910) effect. Is the effect optical, sensory, perceptual, attentional, or just a response bias? Acuity was measured (in undergraduates and graduates) using target lines, with and without images (of lines). Optics (fixation, pupil size, accommodation), response bias, global attention (effort; diversion of attention to imagery), perceptual assimilation (target incorporation by imagery) and perceptual masking (of target by imagery) all fail to explain the effect. Foveally, local attention plays a limited role, as the Perky effect in divided attention is half that in focused attention, but this interaction vanishes with extrafoveal targets. Images produce primarily sensory interference, mimicking a reduction in target energy.
Craver-Lemley et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: