Research Note #007
Date: 16 October 2026
Project: The Familiar — Development of Practice
Status: Exploratory research note / Working questions
Purpose:
The observations collected so far have made one thing increasingly clear: asking “What do you see?” captures only a small part of the process.
A person may recognize one form, discover another, return to the first, or experience several possible interpretations at once. The same image may also be experienced differently at another moment. Recent feedback has introduced a further question: When a new interpretation appears, what happens to the interpretation that came before it?
Does it disappear from immediate awareness? Does it remain available in the background? Can both forms be experienced simultaneously? Or does the observer move between them by redirecting attention? These possibilities may look similar in a written response, but they describe different experiences. This note does not attempt to answer them. Its purpose is to define the next questions more precisely.
1. When two interpretations coexist.
One participant described seeing both a ship and a shoe within the same visual card. The two interpretations appeared to coexist rather than one simply replacing the other. This observation raises a distinction between two possible processes:
- Alternation: the observer sees one interpretation, then another, moving between them.
- Coexistence: two interpretations remain available at the same time, even if attention is directed more strongly toward one.
A third possibility should also be considered: both forms may be recognized, but only one may remain clearly visible in conscious attention at any given moment. The available feedback does not establish which of these processes is occurring. It does, however, suggest that recording only the first and second recognized objects may leave out important information about the experience itself.
Questions for further observation:
- When a second form appears, can the observer still see the first one immediately?
- Does returning to the first interpretation require deliberate effort?
- Can two forms be perceived simultaneously, or are they experienced through rapid shifts of attention?
- Does the answer change when the observer looks at the image for longer?
2. The same image may not remain the same experience.
Another response suggested that the same image can be seen and experienced differently by the same person depending on the time that has passed, their mood, or their feelings. This introduces a temporal dimension to the project. So far, much of the observation has focused on what happens during a single encounter with an image. But perception may also change between encounters, even when the visual material itself remains unchanged. Several explanations remain possible. A later interpretation might depend on what the person remembers from the previous encounter, what they notice first on returning, their current state, or a combination of these factors. The current feedback cannot distinguish between them.
Questions for further observation:
- If a person returns to the same drawing after several hours or days, do they recognize the same forms in the same order?
- Does the first interpretation return immediately, or must it be rediscovered?
- Can a previously unnoticed form become the first recognized form during a later encounter?
- How should changes in mood or subjective state be documented without assuming that they caused the change in perception?
These questions also suggest a useful distinction: a change in perception during one viewing session may not be the same process as a change between separate encounters.
3. Does a previous interpretation influence the next act of seeing?
The latest exploratory observations provide two different perspectives on this question. In the Visual Perception Study 01, 15 of 18 participants reported that seeing a developed version of an ambiguous drawing changed how they subsequently looked at the original. Most described the change primarily as a change in their way of looking rather than a change in the image itself. In a separate survey involving two different ambiguous images, 21 of 34 participants reported no connection between their interpretations of the two images. Six reported a connection, while seven were unsure. These results should not be treated as contradictory.
The first survey examined what happened when participants returned to an image after seeing a developed version of that same image. The second asked whether an interpretation of one image was connected to the interpretation of another. The visual and contextual conditions were different. An interpretation introduced within the same visual structure may remain relevant when the observer returns to it. An interpretation formed from a separate image may have little influence on the next image, or the observer may not notice such a connection.
The distinction matters because an influence within one image should not automatically be assumed to transfer to another image.
Questions for further observation:
- Does an introduced interpretation have a stronger influence when it belongs to the same drawing than when it comes from a different drawing?
- Is any influence based on visual similarity, semantic association, or the expectation that the images are connected?
- Does an observer need to be aware of the connection to experience an influence?
- Can a previously introduced form constrain further interpretation, or can it help the observer discover additional forms?
At present, these remain competing possibilities rather than established explanations.
4. What happens when another person sees the image?
Feedback from a discussion about ambiguous images also recalled a familiar experience: looking at clouds with another person and discovering that each person sees something different.
This introduces a social dimension.
Get Dilyana Teneva’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Two observers may encounter the same visual structure but recognize different forms. Comparing their interpretations can reveal possibilities that neither initially noticed. At the same time, hearing another person’s interpretation may influence what an observer sees next. This creates an important methodological problem. If two people compare interpretations before recording their own observations, it becomes difficult to distinguish independent recognition from recognition influenced by the other person’s suggestion. A possible future procedure would be simple:
- Two observers look at the same image independently.
- Each records their first recognition and any subsequent interpretations.
- They compare their responses only after both have finished recording.
- Any new interpretations that appear after the comparison are recorded separately.
This would not explain why the observers saw different things, but it would help document what was recognized independently and what emerged after the exchange.
Questions for further observation:
- How often do two independent observers recognize different forms in the same drawing?
- Does hearing another person’s interpretation make that form easier to recognize?
- Does the new interpretation remain available after the conversation ends?
- Does social comparison expand the range of possible interpretations or make one interpretation dominant?
5. A more precise way to document recognition.
The observations suggest that a simple numbered list of recognized objects may not always be sufficient. For future practices, it may be useful to record several dimensions separately:
First recognition — the first form the observer identifies.
Recognition sequence — the order in which additional forms are noticed.
Persistence — whether an earlier interpretation remains accessible after another appears.
Coexistence — whether multiple interpretations seem available at the same time.
Reorientation — whether the observer deliberately redirects attention to recover or explore another form.
Contextual influence — whether another image, a previous encounter, an instruction, or another person’s response may have influenced the interpretation.
These are proposed observational categories, not validated measures. They would need to be defined clearly and used consistently before meaningful comparisons could be made. The wording of the questions also matters. Asking someone whether they can still see a particular object may itself direct their attention toward it. Where possible, open-ended observations should therefore be recorded before participants are asked to consider specific interpretations.
6. What comes next?
The next stage of The Familiar can investigate these distinctions through small, repeatable observations rather than trying to answer every question at once. Three lines of inquiry appear particularly useful:
- Within-image persistence: observe what happens when a second interpretation emerges in the same drawing.
- Between-session change: invite an observer to return to the same drawing after a period of time and document what they recognize.
- Independent versus shared interpretation: compare observations recorded before and after two people discuss the same image.
These procedures would need to remain exploratory. Differences in responses would help identify patterns worth investigating, but they would not, by themselves, establish a psychological mechanism.
The immediate goal is to distinguish experiences that may otherwise be grouped together under the general statement that perception has changed.
Current position:
The central question is gradually becoming more specific.
It is no longer only:
What does a person recognize in an ambiguous image?
It is also:
What happens to an interpretation after another interpretation becomes available?
And beyond that:
Does recognition remain available, compete with what comes next, or change according to the observer’s attention, experience, and context?
The current observations do not provide definitive answers. They offer a clearer map of what needs to be distinguished in future practice. For now, The Familiar remains an exploratory project documenting visual recognition, ambiguity, attention, and changing interpretation.
The next step is not to decide which explanation is correct, but to design observations that can help distinguish between them.
