Toggle navigation

Psychologists

Behavioral

Ivan Pavlov
John Watson
B.F. Skinner
Edward Thorndike
Albert Bandura

Humanist

Abraham Maslow
Carl Rogers

Cognitive

Jean Piaget
Jerome Bruner
Edward Tolman
Anne Treisman
Donald Broadbent
Albert Ellis
Aaron Beck
David Kolb
Wilhelm Wundt
Leon Festinger

Psychodynamic

Sigmund Freud
Erik Erikson
Carl Jung

Social

Solomon Asch
Stanley Milgram
Hofling Nurse Study
Philip Zimbardo
Serge Moscovici
Henri Tajfel

Memory

Richard Atkinson
Alan Baddeley
Fergus Craik
Elizabeth Loftus

Developmental

Lev Vygostksy
Jerome Bruner
Mary Ainsworth
John Bowlby
Lawrence Kohlberg

Theories

Behavioral

Behaviorist Approach
Classical Conditioning
Operant Conditioning
Schedules of Reinforcement
Law of Effect
Social Learning Theory

Humanist

Humanistic Psychology
Hierarchy of Needs
Carl Rogers

Personality

Personality Theories
Type A

Cognitive

Cognitive Psychology
Information Processing
Attention
Perception
Cognitive Dissonance

Memory

Memory Intro
Short Term
Long Term
Multi Store Model
Working Memory
Levels of Processing
Forgetting
Eyewitness Testimony

Sigmund Freud

Psychodynamic Approach
Psychoanalysis
Id, Ego, Super-Ego
Unconscious Mind
Psychosexual Stages
Defense Mechanisms

Social
Social Psychology
Conformity
Obedience
Attitudes
Self Concept
Prejudice

Developmental

Jean Piaget
Sensorimotor Stage
Preoperational Stage
Concrete Stage
Formal Operational Stage

Lev Vygostksy
ZPD

Jerome Bruner

Attachment
John Bowlby

Kohlberg - Moral Dev

Psychosocial Stages
Studies

Conformity

Asch Line Study

Sherif Study
Jennes Beans Study

Obedience

Milgram Shock Study

Hofling Nurse Study
Zimbardo Prison Study

Attachment

44 Thieves
Strange Situation
Schaffer & Emerson
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg
Harlow's Monkeys
Hodges & Tizard
Genie

Behavioral

Pavlov's Dogs
Little Albert
Bobo Doll
 Memory

Serial Position Effect

Loftus and Palmer
Peterson and Peterson

Stress

Kiecolt-Glaser
SRRS - Rahe

Developmental

Scaffolding (ZPD)
Heinz Dilemma
Three Mountains Task
Object Permanence

Research Methods

Experimental

Lab Experiment
Field Experiment
Natural Experiment
Experimental Designs
Variables

Non-Experimental
Case Study
Interviews
Questionnaire
Likert Scales
Observations

Conducting Research

Hypotheses
Sampling
Scienific Approach
Lab Report
Ethical Guidelines

Data

Qualitative Quantitative
Reliability
Validity
Correlation
Statistics
Home › Cognitive Psychology › Perception

Visual Perception Theory

by Saul McLeod published 2008

In order to receive information from the environment we are equipped

with sense organs e.g. eye, ear, nose. Each sense organ is part of a
sensory system which receives sensory inputs and transmits sensory
information to the brain.

A particular problem for psychologists is to explain the process by

which the physical energy received by sense organs forms the basis of
perceptual experience. Sensory inputs are somehow converted into
perceptions of desks and computers, flowers and buildings, cars and
planes; into sights, sounds, smells, taste and touch experiences.
A major theoretical issue on which psychologists are divided is the
extent to which perception relies directly on the information present in
the stimulus. Some argue that perceptual processes are not direct, but
depend on the perceiver's expectations and previous knowledge as well
as the information available in the stimulus itself.

This controversy is discussed with respect to Gibson (1966) who has

proposed a direct theory of perception which is a 'bottom-up' theory, and
Gregory (1970) who has proposed a constructivist (indirect) theory of
perception which is a 'top-down' theory.

Psychologists distinguish between two types of processes in perception:

bottom-up processing and top-down processing.

Bottom-up processing is also known as data-driven processing,

because perception begins with the stimulus itself. Processing is
carried out in one direction from the retina to the visual cortex, with
 each successive stage in the visual pathway carrying out ever more
complex analysis of the input.

Top-down processing refers to the use of contextual information in

pattern recognition. For example, understanding difficult
handwriting is easier when reading complete sentences than when
reading single and isolated words. This is because the meaning of
the surrounding words provide a context to aid understanding.

Gregory (1970) and Top Down

Processing Theory

Psychologist Richard Gregory (1970) argued that perception is a

constructive process which relies on top-down processing.

Stimulus information from our environment is frequently ambiguous so

to interpret it, we require higher cognitive information either from past
experiences or stored knowledge in order to makes inferences about
what we perceive. Helmholtz called it the ‘likelihood principle’.

For Gregory perception is a hypothesis, which is based on prior

knowledge. In this way we are actively constructing our perception of
reality based on our environment and stored information.

Summary
A lot of information reaches the eye, but much is lost by the time it
reaches the brain (Gregory estimates about 90% is lost).

Therefore, the brain has to guess what a person sees based on past
experiences. We actively construct our perception of reality.

Richard Gregory proposed that perception involves a lot of

hypothesis testing to make sense of the information presented to the
sense organs.

Our perceptions of the world are hypotheses based on past

experiences and stored information.

Sensory receptors receive information from the environment, which

is then combined with previously stored information about the world
which we have built up as a result of experience.
 The formation of incorrect hypotheses will lead to errors of
perception (e.g. visual illusions like the Necker cube).

Evidence to Support Gregory's

Theory

Highly unlikely objects tend

to be mistaken for likely
objects

Gregory has demonstrated this with a hollow mask of a face (see video
below). Such a mask is generally seen as normal, even when one knows
and feels the real mask.

There seems to be an overwhelming need to reconstruct the face, similar

to Helmholtz's description of 'unconscious inference'. An assumption
based on past experience.
Perceptions can be
ambiguous

The Necker cube is a good example of this. When you stare at the
crosses on the cube the orientation can suddenly change, or 'flip'.

It becomes unstable and a single physical pattern can produce two

perceptions.
Gregory argued that this object appears to flip between orientations
because the brain develops two equally plausible hypotheses and is
unable to decide between them.

When the perception changes though there is no change of the sensory

input, the change of appearance cannot be due to bottom-up processing.
It must be set downwards by the prevailing perceptual hypothesis of
what is near and what is far.

Perception allows behavior

to be generally appropriate
to non-sensed object
characteristics

For example, we respond to certain objects as though they are doors

even though we can only see a long narrow rectangle as the door is ajar.

What we have seen so far would seem to confirm that indeed we do

interpret the information that we receive, in other words, perception is a
top down process.
Critical Evaluation of Gregory's
Theory
1. The Nature of Perceptual
Hypotheses
If perceptions make use of hypothesis testing the question can be asked
'what kind of hypotheses are they?' Scientists modify a hypothesis
according to the support they find for it so are we as perceivers also able
to modify our hypotheses? In some cases it would seem the answer is
yes. For example, look at the figure below:

This probably looks like a random arrangement of black shapes. In fact

there is a hidden face in there, can you see it? The face is looking
straight ahead and is in the top half of the picture in the center. Now can
you see it? The figure is strongly lit from the side and has long hair and
a beard.

Once the face is discovered, very rapid perceptual learning takes place
and the ambiguous picture now obviously contains a face each time we
look at it. We have learned to perceive the stimulus in a different way.

Although in some cases, as in the ambiguous face picture, there is a

direct relationship between modifying hypotheses and perception, in
other cases this is not so evident. For example, illusions persist even
when we have full knowledge of them (e.g. the inverted face, Gregory
1974). One would expect that the knowledge we have learned (from,
say, touching the face and confirming that it is not 'normal') would
modify our hypotheses in an adaptive manner. The current hypothesis
testing theories cannot explain this lack of a relationship between
learning and perception.

2. Perceptual Development
A perplexing question for the constructivists who propose perception is
essentially top-down in nature is 'how can the neonate ever perceive?' If
we all have to construct our own worlds based on past experiences why
are our perceptions so similar, even across cultures? Relying on
individual constructs for making sense of the world makes perception a
very individual and chancy process.

The constructivist approach stresses the role of knowledge in

perception and therefore is against the nativist approach to perceptual
development. However, a substantial body of evidence has been accrued
favoring the nativist approach, for example: Newborn infants show
shape constancy (Slater & Morison, 1985); they prefer their mother's
voice to other voices (De Casper & Fifer, 1980); and it has been
established that they prefer normal features to scrambled features as
early as 5 minutes after birth.

3. Sensory Evidence
Perhaps the major criticism of the constructivists is that they have
underestimated the richness of sensory evidence available to perceivers
in the real world (as opposed to the laboratory where much of the
constructivists' evidence has come from).

Constructivists like Gregory frequently use the example of size

constancy to support their explanations. That is, we correctly perceive
the size of an object even though the retinal image of an object shrinks
as the object recedes. They propose that sensory evidence from other
sources must be available for us to be able to do this.

However, in the real world, retinal images are rarely seen in isolation (as
is possible in the laboratory). There is a rich array of sensory
information including other objects, background, the distant horizon and
movement. This rich source of sensory information is important to the
second approach to explaining perception that we will examine, namely
the direct approach to perception as proposed by Gibson.

Gibson argued strongly against the idea that perception involves top-
down processing and criticizes Gregory’s discussion of visual illusions
on the grounds that they are artificial examples and not images found in
our normal visual environments. This is crucial because Gregory
accepts that misperceptions are the exception rather than the norm.
Illusions may be interesting phenomena, but they might not be that
informative about the debate.

Gibson (1966) and Bottom Up

Processing
Gibson’s bottom up theory suggests that perception involves innate
mechanisms forged by evolution and that no learning is required. This
suggests that perception is necessary for survival – without perception
we would live in a very dangerous environment. Our ancestors would
have needed perception to escape from harmful predators, suggesting
perception is evolutionary.

James Gibson (1966) argues that perception is direct, and not subject to
hypotheses testing as Gregory proposed. There is enough information in
our environment to make sense of the world in a direct way. His theory
is sometimes known as the ‘Ecological Theory’ because of the claim
that perception can be explained solely in terms of the environment.

For Gibson: sensation is perception: what you see if what you get.
There is no need for processing (interpretation) as the information we
receive about size, shape and distance etc. is sufficiently detailed for us
to interact directly with the environment.

Gibson (1972) argued that perception is a bottom-up process, which

means that sensory information is analyzed in one direction: from
simple analysis of raw sensory data to ever increasing complexity of
analysis through the visual system.

Features of Gibson's Theory

The optic array

The starting point for Gibson’s Theory was that the pattern of light
reaching the eye, known as the optic array, containing all the visual
information necessary for perception

This optic array provides unambiguous information about the layout of

objects in space. Light rays reflect off of surfaces and converge into the
cornea of your eye.

Perception involves ‘picking up’ the rich information provided by the

optic array in a direct way with little/no processing involved.

Because of movement and different intensities of light shining in

different directions it is an ever changing source of sensory information.
Therefore, if you move, the structure of the optic array changes.

According to Gibson, we have the mechanisms to interpret this unstable

sensory input, meaning we experience a stable and meaningful view of
the world.

Changes in the flow of the optic array contain important information

about what type of movement is taking place. The flow of the optic
array will either move from or towards a particular point.

If the flow appears to be coming from the point, it means you are
moving towards it. If the optic array is moving towards the point you are
moving away from it.

Invariant Features

the optic array contains invariant information that remains constant as

the observer moves. Invariants are aspects of the environment which
don’t change. They supply us with crucial information.

Two good examples of invariants are texture and linear perspective.

Another invariant is the horizon-ratio relation. The ratio above and
below the horizon is constant for objects of the same size standing on
the same ground.

Affordances

Are, in short, cues in the environment that aid perception. Important

cues in the environment include:

OPTICAL ARRAY: The patterns of light that reach the eye from
the environment.

RELATIVE BRIGHTNESS: Objects with brighter, clearer images

are perceived as closer

TEXTURE GRADIENT: The grain of texture gets smaller as the

object recedes. Gives the impression of surfaces receding into the
 distance.

RELATIVE SIZE: When an object moves further away from the

eye the image gets smaller. Objects with smaller images are seen as
more distant.

SUPERIMPOSITION: If the image of one object blocks the image

of another, the first object is seen as closer.

HEIGHT IN THE VISUAL FIELD: Objects further away are

generally higher in the visual field

Evaluation of Gibson's (1966)

Direct Theory of Perception
Gibson’s theory is a highly ecologically valid theory as it puts
perception back into the real world. A large number of applications can
be applied in terms of his theory e.g. training pilots, runway markings
and road markings. It’s an excellent explanation for perception when
viewing conditions are clear. Gibson’s theory also highlights the
richness of information in optic array and provides an account of
perception in animals, babies and humans.

His theory is reductionist as it seeks to explain perception solely in

terms of the environment. There is strong evidence to show that the
brain and long term memory can influence perception. In this case, it
could be said that Gregory’s theory is far more plausible. Gibson’s
theory also only supports one side of the nature nurture debate, that
being the nature side. Again, Gregory’s theory is far more plausible as it
suggests that what we see with our eyes is not enough and we use
knowledge already stored in our brain, supporting both sides of the
debate.

Visual Illusions
Gibson's emphasis on DIRECT perception provides an explanation for
the (generally) fast and accurate perception of the environment.
However, his theory cannot explain why perceptions are sometimes
inaccurate, e.g. in illusions. He claimed the illusions used in
experimental work constituted extremely artificial perceptual situations
unlikely to be encountered in the real world, however this dismissal
cannot realistically be applied to all illusions.

For example, Gibson's theory cannot account for perceptual errors like
the general tendency for people to overestimate vertical extents relative
to horizontal ones.

Neither can Gibson's theory explain naturally occurring illusions. For

example if you stare for some time at a waterfall and then transfer your
gaze to a stationary object, the object appears to move in the opposite
direction .

Bottom-up or Top-down Processing?

Neither direct nor constructivist theories of perception seem capable of
explaining all perception all of the time. Gibson's theory appears to be
based on perceivers operating under ideal viewing conditions, where
stimulus information is plentiful and is available for a suitable length of
time. Constructivist theories, like Gregory's, have typically involved
viewing under less than ideal conditions.

Research by Tulving et al manipulated both the clarity of the stimulus

input and the impact of the perceptual context in a word identification
task. As clarity of the stimulus (through exposure duration) and the
amount of context increased, so did the likelihood of correct
identification.

However, as the exposure duration increased, so the impact of context

was reduced, suggesting that if stimulus information is high, then the
need to use other sources of information is reduced. One theory that
explains how top-down and bottom-up processes may be seen as
interacting with each other to produce the best interpretation of the
stimulus was proposed by Neisser (1976) - known as the 'Perceptual
Cycle'.

References
DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns
prefer their mothers' voices. Science, 208(4448), 1174-1176.

Gibson, J. J.(1966).The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems.

Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. J. (1972). A Theory of Direct Visual Perception. In J. Royce,

W. Rozenboom (Eds.). The Psychology of Knowing. New York: Gordon
& Breach.

Gregory, R. (1970). The Intelligent Eye. London: Weidenfeld and

Nicolson.

Gregory, R. (1974). Concepts and Mechanisms of Perception. London:

Duckworth.

Slater, A., Morison, V., Somers, M., Mattock, A., Brown, E., & Taylor,
D. (1990). Newborn and older infants' perception of partly occluded
objects. Infant Behavior and Development, 13(1), 33-49.

How to cite this article:

McLeod, S. A. (2007). Visual Perception Theory. Retrieved from
www.simplypsychology.org/perception-theories.html

Comments (18)
Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity

milly ashley · 269 weeks ago +6

really interesting it seems some people are more perceptive to brain washing ,

Reply 2 replies · active 244 weeks ago Report

Richmond Wiafe · 268 weeks ago -2

very interesting and educative.

Reply Report

Veronica · 268 weeks ago +7

how would one go about in ... citing this article in APA format?

Reply Report

MAVIS · 268 weeks ago +1

EDUCATING AND DETAILED

Reply Report

ANNA · 255 weeks ago 0

Are there separate visual pathways for recognising objects and for guiding action?

Reply Report

Stan Brown · 253 weeks ago +14

Mr. Mcleod I am the Director of Safety for a trucking company (large tractor trailers) in the US with responsibilities in accident prevention. I
have a University education, primarily in physical sciences, though I do have some behavioral science training. I found your article VERY
interesting, on point, easy to understand and VERY useful. To you and others on the post I would say:

Physics helps me investigate accidents and engineer controls when possible. Engineered controls in my industry are not often possible in the
short term. Psychology helps me understand the mental processes of my drivers that often lead to unsafe behaviors so I can properly train
operators of potentially very dangerous machinery today and in the very present tense. Understanding visual perception is, obviously, a large
part of that. Thank you for your article and I would encourage those studying psychology to keep in mind: What you learn and publish today
may save the loss of life and limb when those of us in the field of Industrial Safety can use it to prevent an unsafe behavior that statistically
leads to an untoward occurence.

Thank you for your altruistic contributions to a humanitarian endeavor. Great work here folks. Keep it up.

Reply Report

Dan · 242 weeks ago +8

I disagree that Gibson is bottom-up processing. Bottom-up processing is a holdover of Locke's theory of ideas, which argues that perception
begins with meaningless sensation, and a perception has to be constructed internally. It is just another flavor of constructivist views of
perception, they just differ on the basis for where the construction comes from. Top-down theories argue that the meaning is applied by a
priori knowledge. Bottom-up theories argue that meaning is applied by a data-driven process based on associations. Gibson is radically
diffferent from either theory because his theory does not require meaning to be applied at all, so neither theory of "processing" is applicable to
his approach, because "processing" as we think of it is not applicable.

Reply 2 replies · active 18 weeks ago Report

Becky · 187 weeks ago -2

This website is really helping me with my nursing studies, thank you so much for making it clearer and easier to understand!

Reply Report

Mike · 151 weeks ago 0

Very useful article so thank you very much. I was wondering however if you have the reference for the Tulving et al paper mentioned at the
end concerning impact of context relative to the clarity of the stimulus?

Reply Report

GCS · 143 weeks ago -2

I used to love psychology at school, I'm definitely going to have a look around your site for some more inspiration.
 Reply Report

1 2 Next »

Post a new comment

Enter text right here!

Comment as a Guest, or login:

Name Email

Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly.

Subscribe to None Submit Comment

Further Information
Perceptual Set

What do visual illusions teach us?

Visual Perception

Attentional Blindness Video

change blindness experiment :)

Home | About | A-Z Index | Privacy Policy

Follow us

Back to top

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.