Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
3.1.2 UNPRINTED
Psycology
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Sensation | the information we receive about the world using our sense organs |
| Perception | How that sensory information is organised and interpreted by the brain to make sense of the information |
| The difference between sensation and perception | Sensation is about the detection of actual information from the environment, whereas perception is about the interpretation of that information |
| Visual cues | Visual characteristics of objects and collections of objects that we use to understand how those objects are related to each other in space |
| Consistencies | How brain sees objects the same (consistent) despite changes in visual angle or changes in object e.g. getting bigger as we move closer |
| Monocular depth cues | Cues that only require one eye to judge features of objects and their relationship to each other: Height in plane Relative size Occlusion Linear perspective |
| Height in plane (Monocular depth cues) | When an object is higher in comparison to other objects we perceive that object as further away |
| Relative size (Monocular depth cues) | When an object is smaller than another object we perceive it to be further away |
| Occlusion (Monocular depth cues) | When an object is partially covered by another object is perceived as being behind it. |
| Linear perspective (Monocular depth cues) | Objects that converge along parallel lines seem to recede into the distance (e.g. a path going away from the persons view in a picture) |
| Binocular depth cues | Cues that require both eyes to judge features of objects and their relationship to each other Retinal disparity Convergence |
| Retinal disparity (Binocular depth cues) | As the images in both eyes are slightly different (as the eyes are a bit apart) the brain merges them into one image, using the process to work out the distance of objects. Further away objects are in similar positions on both retinal images |
| Convergence (Binocular depth cues) | The closer an object is, the more the eyes need to turn towards each other to focus on it. This information from the eye muscles can help perceive how far away the object is |
| Gibson's direct theory of perception | Bottom up theory Perceive the world directly from sensory information from eyes, to help interact with environment Senses provide all info needed to perceive obects affordance Complex visual info is enough for accurate judgements No inferences |
| Role of motion parallax | Monocular depth cue from the environment that helps to perceive movement. Closer objects appear to move faster than further away objects |
| Nature (Gibson's direct theory of perception) | Accurate perception is innate not learnt, and animals with the most accurate perception had an evolutionary advantage |
| Gibson's direct theory of perception Evaluation (support) | Speed of perception, as it does not require another layer of mental processing We gain a lot of information directly from the environment |
| Gibson's direct theory of perception Evaluation (dont support) | Struggles to explain visual illusions ‘Affordances’ that we can automatically perceive in objects is criticised as we often need to learn an objects use |
| Ponzo | Pair of converging parallel lines (black) similar to railway tracks with two separate identical lines (blue). The upper line appears to be bigger |
| The MüllerLyer | Two identical lines with arrow shapes either pointing in or out. The line length with arrows pointing in appears larger than with arrows pointing out. |
| Rubin’s vase | Image that can be viewed either as two faces looking at each other (black) or as a vase (white). The brain often switches between the two perspectives |
| The Ames Room | 3D room structure that appears to be a normal room from one angle, But is distorted so it appears people moving in the room grow and shrink |
| The Kanizsa triangle | Circles missing a section and lines, cause the illusion of perceiving a non-existent triangle in the center that is lighter than the background |
| The Necker Cube | A wire frame drawing of a 3D cube that can be interpreted as having either of two sides facing out, perspective switches between interpretations |
| Explanations for visual illusions | They work by taking advantage of how the brain normally perceives the world, using limited sensory information. Ambiguity Misinterpreted depth cues Fiction Size constancy |
| Ambiguity (Explanations for visual illusions) | Brain doesn't have any visual cues for things like depth/distance, so there are two possible ways to perceive the image, and the brain switches between them (Rubin’s vase, Necker cube) |
| Misinterpreted depth cues (Explanations for visual illusions) | When the brain makes incorrect assumptions about the object size, based on mistakes about the size consistency of objects (Ponzo, MüllerLyer, Ames room) |
| Fiction (Explanations for visual illusions) | An object/image/colour is perceived but not actually sensed (detected by senses) and is created by the brain (Kanizsa triangle) |
| Size constancy (Explanations for visual illusions) | The brain assumes the actual object size based on experience that far objects should look smaller than closer objects |
| Gregory’s constructivist theory of perception | Top down theory Perception is an active process driven by cognition Sensory information combined with schemas to make perception Inferences made about an object when sensory information is incomplete which are based on past experiences and visual cues. |
| Model of reality | created based on the combination of our sense impressions and references, this is what we perceive and can be different to reality |
| Nurture (Gregory’s constructivist theory of perception) | As inferences develop due to stored knowledge, two peoples interpretations could be different. |
| Gregory’s constructivist theory of perception Evaluation (support) | Evidence that perception is altered by factors such as motivation, expectation, culture and emotion, suggesting that it is actively constructed Explains visual illusions as inferences are incorrect due to limited information |
| Gregory’s constructivist theory of perception Evaluation (dont support) | Challenged by direct perception theories that show inference isn't needed. Visual illusions are highly manipulated images and not applicable to real life |
| Perceptual set | how are brains biased to perceive sensory information in a particular way, with certain aspects being ignored and others selected. This assumes perception is an active process, and inferences depend on schemas and other factors |
| Factors affecting perception | Culture Motivation Emotion Expectation |
| Culture | fundamental in socialisation and developing schema, so people tend to share views as those around them. Hudson (1960) showed images to white westerners and black south Africans, who each perceived the images differently. |
| Motivation | How much we want an object is thought to change how we perceive it. We may want an object for status, or for practical reasons, etc |
| Emotion | The emotional state at a time may change the way we perceive an object. For example, it may seem less threatening if you are happy then if you are anxious. |
| Expectation | As a perceptual set involves us focusing on some things more than others, we tend to notice the things we have more experience with. We only see what we are expecting to see. |
| The Gilchrist and Nesberg study of motivation (aim) | To investigate if motivation in relation to food deprivation influences a person's perceptual set |
| The Gilchrist and Nesberg study of motivation (method) | Participants were randomly assigned to be deprived of food for 20 hours or not. They then completed an image matching activity + shown food images for 15 seconds. After, they were shown a dimmer version. They were to readjust it to how it was originally. |
| The Gilchrist and Nesberg study of motivation (result) | The food deprived participants adjusted it to be brighter then those who weren’t. |
| The Gilchrist and Nesberg study of motivation (conclusion) | Motivation does change a person’s perception set, in this case making food brighter. |
| The Gilchrist and Nesberg study of motivation (evaluation pros) | Practical applications, especially in marketing products |
| The Gilchrist and Nesberg study of motivation (evaluation cons) | Food deprived participants may have felt the need to exaggerate as part of the study There may have been individual differences that caused the result, such as the two groups having different perception of brightness |
| Bruner and Minturn study of perceptual set (aim) | To investigate if expectation of a stimulus influences a person's perceptual set |
| Bruner and Minturn study of perceptual set (method) | Participants (student volunteers) told were taking part in study on recognising numbers+letters Flashed on a screen quickly + students wrote what they saw Test stimulus ‘broken B’ (B/13) Participants shown series of numbers OR letters before broken B. |
| Bruner and Minturn study of perceptual set (result) | When the participants were primed with numbers they mostly wrote 13, but if they were primed with letters they more likely wrote B |
| Bruner and Minturn study of perceptual set (conclusion) | The expectations influenced the perceptual set |
| Bruner and Minturn study of perceptual set (evaluation pros) | As a lab study, extraneous variables were controlled and it was replicable |
| Bruner and Minturn study of perceptual set (evaluation cons) | Used students, so not a fair representation of the population as a whole Lacks mundane realism, and isn’t very relatable to real-life |
Created by:
FlashCardFun!