Theoretical Approaches to Perception Processes

Theoretical Approaches to Perception Processescognitive psychologists differ in their views on the processes involved in cognizance. Outline two theoretical set outes to lore and provide confirmable support for each.IntroductionExplanations of science seek to pardon and better understand the process that facilitates the transformation of sensational information from the surround into the experience of objects, sounds, and movement. One of the most established fields of psychological research, studies in perception range from basic recognition of settle, colour, and form, to the more than complex blood between, motion, attention and performance (Eysenck, 2005). In the early 1900s, a group of psychologists desire to show how people organize fields of information during perception, memory, and thought (eg Duncker, 1945 Koffka, 1935 Kohler, 1940 J. M. Mandler G. Mandler, 1964 Wertheimer, 1945/ 1982. In Barsalou, 1992). Since thus, the distinctions between the regulate of c ognitive and perception psychologists confound become less(prenominal) obvious, with cognitive and behavioral approaches increasingly being used in the strain to understand the complex process of optical perception. As experi noetic approaches have brought about more refined empirical techniques, a greater upshot of theories have developed in order to help explain the phenomenon. This es govern focuses on James Gibsons surmise that perception and action argon very closely related. Gibson first put forward this possible action more than cubic decimetre years ago (Eysenck, 2005). The second system under handling is the Constructivist approach, which posits that experience formed in memory assist the reviewer in making informed judgements about the size, shape, form, etc of an object.Gibson (1979) first brought into discussion the term take aim perception relating to the judgement that we pick up enough information from the visual environment to form a conscious version o f what we see and that we do non need to use higher levels of cognitive processing in order to understand the visual world (Cardwell et al, 2004).Part of Gibsons theory maintained that perception estimates upon the existence of a number of cues which inform the soul about the size, shape, and cereal of objects, and the distance away from the commentator that they lie. Gibsons work is unique as he based his findings on experiments conducted outside of research laboratory conditions although still very much within a controlled environment with mensurable results. Part of Gibsons work has helped develop new technological features at airports to help pilots develop their depth perception, while the application of his flow patterns idea has been incorporated into the constructions of roundabouts to create the illusion for drivers that they argon accelerating on their approach and consequently making them slow down (Cardwell et al, 2004). The applicability of these theories to real -life situations increases their relevance and causes them to be an prepossessing explanation as to how we perceive our visual environment. Gibson (1979) expounded upon what he think upt by come outSo when I assert that perception of the environment is direct, I mean that it is nonmediated by retinal pictures, neural pictures, or mental pictures. Direct perception is the activity of outsmartting information from the ambient soldiers of light. I call this a process of information pickup that involves the beta activity of looking around, getting around, and looking at things. (1979, p.147)Gibson posited that it was in the constitution of light as an optic ray that facilitated our understanding of objects and material reality. Gibsons studies of observation he claimed were founded upon his experiences in World War II. When carrying out aura experiments, Gibson concluded that the laboratory approach to the study of depth perception could not be suited to improving a pilots ab ility to land an airplane, and that it was indispensable to study perception outdoors into the natural environment. According to Goldstein (1981, p.191), in Gibsons ground theory visual space is defined not by an object or an array of objects in the air (as occurs for depth cues much(prenominal) as interposition, relative size, etc.) but rather is defined by the ground, a continuous surface or array of adjoining surfaces. Gibsons caryopsis gradient suggests that there exists a rate of change in texture density. For example, a the gaps in a rail track appear to get closer together the greater the distance over which they are comprehend (Eysenck, 2005). Gibson measured his findings in real life situations of perception where the observer is not stationary in a laboratory and observing rather, Gibson believed in the grandness of the observer being active, constantly moving their eyes, head and body in relation to the environment (Goldstein, 1981).Gibsons work has been continuousl y investigated by early(a) researchers who have been keen to establish its strengths and weaknesses. For example, Greenberg and Donnell (1972) found that the weakness of stripes or straight contours does have some touch points in research on infant and adult perception. (In Pick and Gibson, 1979, p.71). While very young infants preferent to look at checks over stripes (Greenberg and Donnell, 1972), MacKay and Jeffreys (1973) recorded that adults looking at parallel lines in contrast with lines that had corners or breaks in them, showed more visually evoked potential for the checked an broken lines, but was relatively low-toned for the parallel lines (Ibid). Whereas Mayzner and Habinek (1976) found in tachistoscopic experiments that the threshold is much lower for detection contours that change in direction than it is for detecting those that do not ( Mayzner Habinek, 1976. In Pick and Gibson, 1979, p.71). These forms of empirical research have dated well as they highlight basic dichotomies between shapes and forms and how they are sensed by the human race eye and thus translated as information by the brain. There is not much scope for disproving Gibsons theories rather, the challenge of his work lies in whether his explanations of perception are enough to explain the complexity of understanding the material world. Gibson similarly made an insightful point as to the constitution of research and theory of perception that the starting point of perceptual research and theory depends critically on the language used to describe the information for sale for perception (Carlson, 1997, p.76), and that psychologists are thus apt to partially self-define the objectives and results of their own experiments.In ostensible contrast to Gibsons work, the Constructivist approach places less emphasis on the disposition of the visual stimulus itself and focuses on the implications of stored memories (Cardwell et al, 2004). Past experience thus shapes and informs lo ok experience. Gibsons idea that perception is founded upon cues provided by the object itself is reversed in this approach to understanding perception, where perception is effectively constructed by the memory. Gregory expounded upon Gibsons theory by experimenting with the idea that visual stimuli are basic starting points upon which the observer piddles informed guesses about their meaning (Cardwell et al, 2004). Constructivist theory has received much empirical support, beginning in the early 20th century with the work of Tichener (1914). irksome (1946) worked with, and altered these experiments, to produce the well-known 1941 Holway and Boring experiment. Here, participants observed the size of a disk, from varied distances. Holway and Boring sought to reduce the number of distance cues available to participants, and found that the more that cues reduced, the poorer the size perceptions recorded. Boring concluded that perception needed a cores stimulus, and a mediating contex t informed by cues. surface perception thus relies upon a perceived distance that allows the observer to make informed judgements. In such laboratory experiments there exists the hypothesis that veritable illusions persist in our perception of the world this was a crucial broker of the Constructivist theory. Gibson criticised the empirical research for these approaches, highlighting their artificiality and inapplicability to real-life. Furthermore, if perception is analogous to our making judgements and decisions this would not explain how precise perception is ie if Constructivist theory is correct then we would make many more mistakes in how we perceive the world.To conclude, neither approach is meant to be an alternative to the other rather they are used in conjunction with each other, and the type of processing employed will depend on the type of visual stimulus present in attend of the observer. In her discussion about the relevance and scope of cognitive theory, Disessa quotes Marton who has hard criticised the efforts of cognitive science to explain human experience (Disessa, 1993). Disessa goes on to say that whether for systematic or accidental reasons, cognitive science has not make particularly well at illuminating the structure of experience. (1993, p.261). If cognitive approaches are to ultimately succeed, then they need to focus more on explaining disposition itself (Barsalou, 1992), rather than the mechanisms which define consciousness. Other explanations have attempted to identify the behavioural aspects of sensory experience which indirectly inform the observer as to the nature of their experience. For example, Ludwig (1999) suggests that as well as being able to perceive shapes visually and through touch, we also gain information through other sensory modes. He gives the example of knowing through smelling the scent of a mango that the fruit of the smells origin is round here, shape is not perceived by a visual judgement, but is in ferred from the source of ones sensory experience and collateral information that an object of a accepted shape caused it. (Ludwig, 1999, p. 29). There will no doubt continue to be variations and expansions upon the work of Gibson, and of the older constructivist theories yet the fundamental precepts of each theory uphold as integral to the study of perception as they did over fifty years ago. The relationship between the static or stationary observer and the material world will ultimately rely upon the distance, texture, and shape of the perceived object, while the degree to which perception relies upon past experience is yet to be fully understood.ReferencesBarsalou, L.W. (1992) Cognitive Psychology An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Boring, E. G. (1946). Perception of objects. American Journal of Physics, 14, 99-107.Cardwell, M Clark, L and Meldrum, C. (2004) Psychology. London Collins.Carlson, R.A. (1997) Experienced Cognition. M ahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Disessa, AA. (1993) Cognitive Responses. Cognition and Instruction, vol 10. Issue 3, p.261.Eysenck, M.W. Keane, M.T. (2005). Cognitive Psychology A Students Handbook, (5th Ed) Hove Psychology Press.Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston Houghton MifflinGoldstein, E.B. (1981) The Ecology of J. J. Gibsons Perception. Leonardo, Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 191-195.Holway, A. H., Boring, E. G. (1941). Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant. American Journal of Psychology, 54, 21-37.Ludwig, K. (1996). grade Properties and Perception. Philosophical Issues, Vol. 7, pp. 325-350.Pick, A.D, and Gibson, E.J. (1979) Perception and Its Development A Tribute to Eleanor J. Gibson. Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Titchener, E. B. (1914). A textbook of psychology. New York Macmillan.