Chapter 9 - Perception Flashcards

1
Q

Sensation

A

The image that hits your retina

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Perception

A
  • What you interpret the sensation to be

- Perceptions come from past experiences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

ALTERNATE THEORY

A
  • Nativist Theory
  • James Gibson’s theory
  • States that perception is an instinctive process, no need for brain to interpret the info received by eyes because all info is perceived directly and immediately
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Other name for the Nativist Theory

A

‘Bottom-up processing’ Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does the nativist theory suggest?

A
  • We are born w/ our conceptual skills
  • They’re ready to be used, we don’t have to rely on experience
  • Babies are born w/ depth perception which serve a purpose - namely to help a baby survive in the world
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Why don’t we need the perceptual set?

A

Enough info in objects, sensation is enough. We can interpret and identifying them w/out external info like experiences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bottom-up theory of perception

A
  • Our perception is data driven, depends entirely on the external info we gain through the senses
  • Does not reply on stored info in brain to help us interpret it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Optic flow patterns

A

Sensation of optics moving (all you need to figure out you’re moving)

Info from environment which were readily available to us w/ out needing to process them in any way

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Optic flow patterns and stationary.

A
  • Place you’re aiming for appears stationary, while everything else seems to be moving away from that point
  • Further things away from place appearing static, faster they appear to be moving
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

CORE STUDY

A

Haber and Levin (2001)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

AIM

A

To see if we use top down or bottom up processing when we perceive the size and distance of objects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

SAMPLE

A

9 male students, all with normal eyesight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

METHOD

A
  • Lab experiment (repeated measures design - all participants take part in every condition)
  • 45 objects divided into 3 groups
    • GROUP A: 15 objects which may vary in size (e.g. x-mad tree, teddy bear etc)
    • GROUP B: 15 cardboard cut out shapes (e.g. ovals, triangles, rectangles)
    • GROUP C: 15 objects that do not vary in size (e.g. milk bottle, baseball bat)
  • Participants in large field divided into quadrants
  • Look at each and write down estimations of the size/distance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Top down processing definition

A

Prior knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bottom up processing definition

A

No prior knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Predictions for study:

A
  • Bottom up is more likely for groups A and B

- Top down is more likely for group C (based on perpetual set)

17
Q

FINDINGS

A

SIZE:
• Group A = reasonable accurate estimates
• Group B = also reasonably accurate estimates
• Group C = much more accurate, suggests the use of top down processing as participants are using prior knowledge

DISTANCE:
Participants very accurate at estimating distance (but likely to underestimate the distance in Group A)
This suggests the use of bottom up processing (data from the environment) as they have no prior knowledge to base it on. Never experienced it before so are not using a perceptual set

18
Q

EVALUATION FOR CORE STUDY

A

:( - Order effects, participants get bored
:( - This’ll effect validity as you can’t tell if they suck bc they’re bored or if they suck bc they don’t care
:( - Low in ecological validity, not a very real life setting so hard to generalise results to the real world
:( - Small sample probably isn’t representative of the population, results aren’t generalisable
:( - Only males
:( - Only students
:) - Lends support to both theories

19
Q

Application to real life

A
  • Use perpetual set to help advertisement
  • If looking for a fancier item, and one is Tesco finest and one is just ordinary Tesco’s, you’re more likely to choose the former because we have an understanding that one saying finer means better
  • Subliminal advertising = quick images that don’t register seeing but manipulate our perceptual sets