Perception researchers

?
  • Created by: freya_bc
  • Created on: 05-01-17 11:10
Gibson (1966)
ambient optic array- carries info about nature/position of surfaces it has reflected off. Movement is specified as fluctuations in array e.g. slow-sun, fast-other animals. If something moves, what light is reflected will move/change/tell us about env
1 of 49
Snowdon et al., (2006)
left visual field to right primary visual cortex, right visual field to left primary visual cortex
2 of 49
Shephard tables
look different in terms of size but when remove table legs they are the same- cafe wall illusion black and white wobbily tiles but when remove lines they are actually straight
3 of 49
Helmholtz (1821-1894)
inadeq info provided by sense is augmented buy unconscious inference- constructivist assumptions- 1. perception is active/constructive, 2. end product of presented stim and int factors (hyp/exp/motiv)3. errors will occur bc hyp influence
4 of 49
Gregory (1923-2010)
perception= inference 'not just determined by simple stim patterns, dynamic searching for best interp available data..beyond immediately given evidence' size,colour, orientation, perceptual constancy
5 of 49
Gregory (1997)
4 types of visual illusions- distortions e.g muller lyer, ambiguous figures e.g. rubins vase, paradoxial figures e.g. penrose triangle, fictions e.g. kanizsa triangle
6 of 49
Gordon (1989)
Gregory's theory most explicit and fullest treatment of central idea of empiricism
7 of 49
Eysenck and Keane (1990)
Gregory successful in explaining illusions (artificially simplified stim) rather than perception as a whole
8 of 49
Milner and Goodale (1995)
why visual system successful if so many errors? dorsal- vision for action- should be immune to illusions because need to provide accurate info about world, ventral- vision for ID e.g. illusions tap ventral conscious visual perception,how scale to pic
9 of 49
Haart et al., (1999)
interact with 3D Muller-lyer- indicate size of shaft with thumb and forefinger (V), grasp shaft lengthwise (D)R: strong illusion when perceptually matching but not grasping C: vision for action (D) treats stim dif
10 of 49
Gibson's Theory of Direct Perception (1904-1979)
Ecological Approach relationship between perceiver and envi - primary function facil interaction between idv and envi- starting point is ambient optical array providing unambig/invariant info from optic flow patterns,texture gradients and affordances
11 of 49
Land and Lee (1994)
Drivers rarely look at focus of expansion, tend to look at centre lines and road edge
12 of 49
Lee (1980)
drivers use flow itself (line passing from view below the driver= locomotor flow line), when on course this coincides with road- when turning corner change bc destination point constantly changing
13 of 49
Warren (1984)
Stair climbing- people's body effect how we perceive our ability to act on things- could change height of step- asked pp how each they thought it would be to climb- judgement only- short and tall groups R: judgements related to height
14 of 49
Humphreys and Riddoch (2001)
Hemispatial neglect fail to respond to items in contralesional view field. Patient MP showed symptoms when searchign for objects defined by name or visual feature BUT could locate objects defined by action they afforded e.g. paw,screw
15 of 49
Humphreys and Riddoch (2001) conclusion
Evidence for action-defined templates in search e.g. find cup couldnt find, find something to drink out of could do
16 of 49
Gibson
Resonance- animals pick up info automatically/effortlessly providing theyre attuned to that info e.g. hopping affordances not perceived hy humans
17 of 49
Gordon (1989)
Gibson's work had a phil impact- overturned view that perceptual experience distinct from objective world "restored envi to central place...organisms did not evolve in world of simple isolated stim"
18 of 49
Cutting (1986)
constructivists theories dont doubt Gibson 'most experients were on virtual rather than real objects and Gibosn picture perception is indirect, most exp never rel to direct/indirect distinction as he construed it
19 of 49
Marr (1982)
said perception more complex than that- ID'ing invariants/perceiving affordance more complex- actually an info pro problem
20 of 49
Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981)
suitable for some more than others- distinction between "seeing" and "seeing-as"
21 of 49
Tolman (1948)
rats could make novel shortcuts in maze
22 of 49
Hollow face illusion and Ames room
not examples of static/simple lab illusions- movement of observer within illusion does not disturb effect- depend on invocation of some memory representation- disguise one wall far away by making it higher
23 of 49
Wertheimer, Kohler, Koffka
Gestalt Psychology
24 of 49
Koffka (1935)
of several geometrically possible organisations, that one will actually occur which possesses the best, simpliest and most stable shape
25 of 49
Atteneave (1954)
goodness= possessing high degree of internal redundnacy- the structure of unseen part is predictable from the seen parts
26 of 49
Rubin (1915)
stated that the figure in a figure-ground has 'thinglike' qualities whilst the ground is relatively uniform/can be reversible
27 of 49
Roth (1986)
Gestalt principles seems correct on many things- wholes more than parts- "most comprehensible account of perceptual group...Gestalt psychologists in 1920s"
28 of 49
Spelke (1993)
3/5/9mo do need learning to apply principles of perceptual organisation
29 of 49
Navon (1977)
hyp that overall Gestalt should be perceived in preference to idv components- RT for global not impacted by local letters, RT with local letters slow when mismatch
30 of 49
Kinchla and Wolfe (1979)
global processing fleshed out local detail but not always- found opposite effect for larger stim
31 of 49
Cuthill et al., (2005)
moth like targets exposed to bird predation in field- disruptive discolouration is effect means of camo, more so than background pattern matching
32 of 49
Humphreys and Riddoch (1987)
Cs of HJA- unable to distinguish real/novel objects, drew in piecemeal fashion - integrative agnosia
33 of 49
Marrs (1982)
Computational Theory- ultimate goal of vision to derive a representation/description of shape primal, 2 and 1/2 d sketch, 3d model
34 of 49
Warrington and Taylor (1978)
incorporate data from neurpsych- some patients cannot transform 2 1/2 D to 3D- Marr successfully acknowledges that recog can occur from unusual views only
35 of 49
Biederman (1987)
Recognition by components theory - allows more complex forms than cylinders- GEONS, invariant properties of images curvature, parallel, co-termination, symmetry, co-linearity
36 of 49
Biederman and Ju (1988)
Object recognition only need edges- not impaired by changes in colour/texture/fine details
37 of 49
Biederman and Cooper (1991)
although 36 specific geons only suggests some representation at this level
38 of 49
Cave and Kosslyn (1993)
apparently unaffected if line drawing of objects are divided in parts so geons are hard to detect
39 of 49
Palmer (1975)
Biederman de-emphasises role of context, approp context facilitated object recog and inappropriate context slowed recog
40 of 49
Shephard and Metzler (1971)
Mental rotation, stim rotated in picture plane, depth or cannot rotated to congruence- time to answer is a linear function of angular rotation required to identify whether the same shape or not - mentally moved pictures in head to see if fitted
41 of 49
Kosslyn, Ball and Reisser (1978)
Mental scanning- learn map of island with 7 specific locations, imagine whole map and look at particular location, take shortest possible direct route to, press button when mentally there
42 of 49
Kosslyn, Ball and Reisser (1978) reports
RT linear function of actual distance- people were visually scanning image- support for depictive/analogical rather than propositional account
43 of 49
Pylyshyn (1973)
argued against idea of images as picture-like entities- when we forget parts of image forget meaningful bits rather than random- need some form of propositional code to nego between verbal and non-verbal codes
44 of 49
Kosslyn
Computational Model of Imagery- images rep in spatial medium with 4 like real world properties a space with limited extent, high central resolution, grain that obscures small detail, image fades after generation, LTM 2 forms of data image/proposition
45 of 49
Annett (1995)
can conceive mental rotation as a form of motor imagery
46 of 49
Wolschlager and Wolschlager (1998,2001)
visual image rotation disrupted by performing/planning concurrent hand movement in opposite direction
47 of 49
Kosslyn et al., (2001)
rotational strategy can affect use of motor strucutres even when outcome is identical- PET scan area M1 prim motor active-imagine moving object even when not physically doing so
48 of 49
Sirigu and Duhamel (2001)
visual vs motor strategy influenced by viewpoint and posture - hands on lap quicker at answering Qs on own hands, behind back easier to answer about someone elses - clear relationship between visual images and motor structures
49 of 49

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Snowdon et al., (2006)

Back

left visual field to right primary visual cortex, right visual field to left primary visual cortex

Card 3

Front

Shephard tables

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Helmholtz (1821-1894)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Gregory (1923-2010)

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Perception researchers resources »