I find these experimemts a bit dubious, as they seem to view image construction simply as a visual process, and ignore the posible underlying effects of internal talking. For instance if I'm asked to imagine a cow, and then it is measured how long it takes me to imagine its component bits, eg udder, eyes, tail etc. I might choose to say my image is complete once I have repeated the instructions to myself sotto vocco, rather than when a mental picture has formed. Kosslyn et al do admit later that descriptive factors also play a role in imaging, but do not seem to take this into account when interpreting their earlier experiments. Kosslyn then goes on to construct a computer simulation model that reflects the properties of images that have been suggested from their experimental evidence.
PUT integrates parts into an image.
FIND locates relevant parts of the image. Kosslyn et al feel that the use of a computer simulation model enables them to counter the objection that notions of mental imagery are vague and logically incoherent. 4. enables predictions to be made on the basis of complex interactions among components. This is because of the fundamental differences between the two processing techniques i.e. a computer processes in a serial fashion while human brains operate by parallel distributed processing. Kosslyn goes on to counter some of the objections about the validity of his results.