Research Note #005
When the Image Stays the Same, but Perception Changes?
Date: 19 August 2026
Project: The Poznatoto Framework — Development Notes
Status: Working hypothesis (Version 0.1)
Purpose
This research note presents the first 18 responses collected through the Visual Perception Study. The purpose of this stage is exploratory: to observe what happens to the perception of an ambiguous, open-ended image after participants are shown a second version in which several recognizable forms have been developed from the original.
The central question is:
Does exposure to a recognizable interpretation change the way the original ambiguous image is subsequently perceived?
This is not intended as a formal test of a causal hypothesis. The current sample is small and the data are descriptive.
Participants:
18 participants completed the study.
- Age: 9 participants were 18–24, 7 were 25–34, and 2 were 35–44.
- Visual art/design experience: 6 reported relevant professional or educational experience, 3 reported some experience, and 9 reported none.
- Participants came from 10 countries, with the largest group from the United Kingdom (7 participants).
1. The first encounter with ambiguity
The immediate reactions to the original image were varied, but several recurring descriptions appeared: chaos, messy, confusion, squiggles, graph, signature, haphazard, complicated graph, controlled chaos.
When asked whether anything recognizable came to mind, 11 of 18 participants answered yes, 4 answered no, and 3 were unsure. The recognizable interpretations included graphs, writing, signatures, arrows, childhood drawing, spaghetti, and other personally meaningful associations. This is important because the image did not produce a single dominant interpretation across participants.
2. Recognition changes the experience of the image
Participants were then shown a second version in which recognizable forms had been developed from the original drawing. The second version was generally rated:
- more interesting: mean 6.67 vs. 5.44 for the original
- more comfortable: mean 6.22 vs. 5.83
- more structured: mean 4.33 vs. 3.33
Ten participants preferred the second version, five preferred the original, two preferred both equally, and one preferred neither. However, the reasons for preference were not uniform. Some participants preferred the second version because recognizable forms made the image feel more meaningful, intentional or interesting. Others preferred the original precisely because it remained ambiguous and open to interpretation. This distinction may become important in future research: increased recognizability does not necessarily mean increased preference.
3. The original image does not remain perceptually neutral
The most relevant finding for the current research question came after participants returned to the original image.
15 of 18 participants reported that seeing the second image changed the way they looked at the original:
- 12 — Yes, somewhat
- 3 — Yes, significantly
- 2 — No
- 1 — Not sure
When asked what changed more — the image or the way they were looking at it — 13 of 18 participants selected “Mostly the way I was looking at it.” Only 2 selected “Mostly the image”, while 2 selected “Neither” and 1 selected “Both”. This is the clearest preliminary pattern in the current dataset. The physical original image had not changed. Yet for most participants, their reported experience of looking at it had.
4. Recognized forms can persist
Participants were asked whether they could subsequently look at the original without seeing or being reminded of the recognizable forms introduced in the second version. The responses were:
- 6 — Yes, easily
- 5 — Yes, but it takes some effort
- 5 — Not really
- 2 — No
Therefore, 7 of 18 participants said they could not fully look at the original without being reminded of the previously developed forms.
Another 5 could do so, but only with effort. This suggests that once a recognizable interpretation has been introduced, it may remain perceptually available even after the viewer returns to the original ambiguous stimulus. However, this does not establish whether the effect is caused by anchoring, priming, contextual learning, expectation, or another mechanism.
5. An unexpected finding: new forms can also appear
Five participants reported noticing additional recognizable forms in the original that had not been developed in the second version. Three were unsure and ten reported no additional forms. This is particularly interesting because it leaves open two competing possibilities. The second image may:
A. constrain perception
by making previously introduced interpretations more dominant,
or
Get Dilyana Teneva’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
B. activate further exploration
by teaching the viewer to look for additional structure in the original.
The current data cannot distinguish between these possibilities. This is therefore an important question for the next stage of the research.
6. Familiarity and emotional response
Participants also rated their general tendency to feel safer or more comfortable when something becomes familiar or understandable.
The mean response was 7.22/10. When encountering something unclear or ambiguous:
- 5 participants said they become curious;
- 5 said it depends strongly on the situation;
- 4 try to understand or organize it;
- 2 feel some discomfort;
- 2 are comfortable leaving it unresolved.
When something unclear begins to make more sense, the reported emotional change averaged 6.56/10. These findings are exploratory only. They do not demonstrate a relationship between familiarity and emotional state, but they suggest that this relationship may be worth examining more directly in future practice sessions.
Preliminary interpretation
The strongest pattern in this first dataset is not that participants “see the same thing.”
They do not.
Instead, the data suggest that an introduced interpretation can alter the subsequent experience of returning to the same ambiguous image.
The most notable figures are:
15/18 — reported that the second image changed how they looked at the original.
13/18 — said that what changed more was the way they were looking at the image rather than the image itself.
7/18 — could not fully look at the original without being reminded of recognizable forms from the second image.
These observations are compatible with the broader literature on context, top-down processing, priming and perceptual interpretation. They do not, however, demonstrate that the first self-generated recognition functions as an anchor. That remains an open research question.
The next question
The current study began with:
Does the sequence of recognition depend on the first recognized object?
The present data suggest a related and perhaps more fundamental question:
Once a recognizable interpretation has been established, does it change the way the observer subsequently searches for meaning in the same ambiguous stimulus?
Future practice sessions will investigate the sequence of recognition directly, including:
- time to first recognition;
- identity of the first recognized form;
- subsequent recognition sequence;
- emotional state before and after the practice;
- tension;
- creative state;
- mental distraction;
- artistic experience.
The next stage will move gradually from observation toward controlled testing.
For now, the conclusion is deliberately modest:
The image may remain physically unchanged while the perceptual relationship between observer and image changes.
That is the phenomenon The Familiar will continue to investigate.
…Postscript
These observations come from an ongoing exploratory survey conducted as part of The Familiar. At the time of publication, 18 participants had completed the survey. The study remains open. If you would like to contribute your own perception to the dataset, you can participate here:
Take part in the study → https://tally.so/r/9qYJ1K
The dataset will continue to grow, so the observations presented here should be read as preliminary rather than conclusive.
