Lecture 3 - Perception, Knowledge and Action Flashcards

1
Q

What is perception?

A

How the brain makes sense of the patterns of reflected light that we experience.

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

What is size constancy?

A

The fact that as we move away, the size of a projection on the retina decreases, but we still know it’s the same size.

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

What is shape constancy?

A

The idea that as we move around an object or it rotates, we see different patterns of light yet recognise that the object is the same.

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

What is binocular parallax?

A

The discrepancy of info received by each eye, used to determine distance as closer objects have greater parallax.

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

How do we perceive depth?

A
  • Binocular parallax (stereopsis)

- Monocular cues: size/visual angles, occlusion, texture gradient, lighting/shading, motion parallax.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is motion parallax?

A

The movement of one object relative to another - closer objects shift faster.

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

What did William James believe about the development of perception?

A

That we learn to perceive from learning and experience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What did Gibson and Walk (1960) do?

A

The visual cliff experiment - 8 months old wouldn’t crawl over deep side. Not the result of binocular parallax as babies with eye-patches behave in the same way.

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

The visual cliff experiment findings suggest that babies perceive depth through motion parallax, but is this ability from birth?

A

Babies learn to use motion parallax when they start to crawl in order to avoid collision, as shown by the visual cliff experiment done on 7mos who could/n’t crawl or use a wheeled walker. Campos et al (1992)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What did Bower (1965) do?

A

Conditioned 3mos to like a 30cm cube (as indicated by increased dummy sucking) and presented various cubes at different distances. Found that they recognised the cube at greater distances, but also a lager cube at a larger distance with the same retinal image size. They therefore have some understanding of depth perception.

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

What did Slater et al. (1990) do?

A

Used the habituation paradigm to get 2 day old babies to show decreased interest in a cube with a distinctive pattern at a fixed distance. Then showed a different sized cube at various distances, they showed interest = recognised it was new. Suggests that size constancy and depth perception is innate.

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

What is the value of depth perception and size constancy?

A

Can recognise and have a defensive reaction towards objects heading for you.

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

What did Bower et al (1970) find?

A

That 2 week olds had a defensive reaction when objects were projected towards their faces.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What did Ball and Tronick (1971) find?

A

That 2 week olds had a defensive reaction for rapidly expanding patterns (train image) on a screen.
Also that other expanding patterns not on a collision course did not elicit a defensive reaction.

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

What did Kelman and Spelke (1983) do?

A

Showed 3mos a white bar moving over a black bar, then in test phase they preferred a broken bar indication that they knew the first bar was occluded and didn’t perceive it as a novel object.

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

What is a criticism on Kelman and Spelke (1983)

A

That the broken bar might just be more interesting, BUT control condition with only the test phase showed no preference.

17
Q

What did Slater et al (1990) find?

A

The same as Kelman and Spelke (1983) in newborns.

18
Q

What did Slater et al (1991) find?

A

That we are born with a surprisingly effective perceptual memory - in a training phase 45* angles were presented at various rotations and in the test phase 2 day olds looked more at 135* lines irrespective of orientation.

19
Q

What did Fantz (1961) find?

A

1mos prefer to look at a correctly arranged face rather than a jumbled face or a blank one.

20
Q

What did Fogel and Melson (1988) do?

A

Used eye-tracking technology to determine that 1-2mos fixate on the eyes of a photograph.

21
Q

What did Bower (1982) find?

A

That a crude mask is enough to elicit a baby’s smile (evolutionary advantage - smile=reward)

22
Q

What did Carpenter (1975) find?

A

Although babies usually prefer novel faces, 2 week olds recognised and preferred their mother’s face. Evolutionary value.

23
Q

What did Melzoff find regarding facial expressions?

A

Face preference facilitates babies’ capacity for imitation.

24
Q

What is intermodal mapping?

A

A baby’s map between vision and motor control. Enables facial expression imitation.

25
Q

What does hiding objects in one place then switching to another show (A not B task)?

A

Babies don’t have object permanence - they understand the object in terms of previous reaching movement. Perception is subordinate to action.

26
Q

What did Thouless (1932) do?

A

Asked pts to draw a dinner plate as it appeared, found that they exaggerate its circularity, perhaps due to ambient cues, but not in a dark box.

27
Q

What did Taylor and Mitchell (1997) find?

A

Circularity is still exaggerated when the shape is presented in a dark box, but not when pts are unaware that it’s a circle = shape constancy!

28
Q

What did Mitchell and Taylor (1997) find?

A

That 3yo children exaggerate circularity more than 7yos.

29
Q

What did Ropar and Mitchell (2002) find?

A

That people with autism exaggerate shape less than people without autism when perspective cues are not available.