Gibson strongly disagreed with Gregory believing that no hypotheses were necessary. Everything was right there in front of our faces and in a sense we just know how to react to our sensations, therefore our perceptions as the two are one, sensations are perceptions and perceptions are sensations. Everything is in direct correlation with each other. He presented his theory with 3 points: optic flow patterns (movement), invariant features (depth of field), and affordance (clarity and distinction through examples such as textures and light). Richard Gregory explained back in 1970 what he called the top-down approach. In this approach, he defines it as “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.” (McLeod, S. A. 2007) A basic use of contextual clues to form and understand what it is our senses are being presented with. Gregory liked to use the words hypotheses and prior experience in much of his explanations for this process. That without prior experience we could not construct plausible hypotheses for the information that is being presented to our senses that we are supposed to perceive and therefore understand. A form of data analysis that comes from our senses, that we are directly experiencing life and thus making assumptions based on our own prior knowledge as to who, what, when, why, and where.
Gestalt theories explained back in the 1920s what German psychologists Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Wolfgang Kohler, and Edgar Rubin said were “unified wholes” where we take our visual perceptions and group them by certain principles. They said these principles were: similarity, continuation, closure, proximity, and figure & ground. Where if we viewed an image that, for example, was not complete, we would assess it as a whole and fill in what was missing. These theories stressed that it was about the whole and not the parts. The empiricist approach described by Bishop George Berkeley back in the 17th century explained that sensation and perception are to be based on scientific evidence that can be tested and proven. The computational approach described by David Marr’s is a hardware/software approach to how we think about the world around us. In defining the computational theory by addressing the questions that are presented to our visual system, we can then represent those questions algorithmically (our software), so that we are then able to implement the data we have constructed into our brain (our hardware).
Of all these theories/approaches I can honestly say that I feel that I can understand and relate best to the bottom-up approach. I am a see it and now it type of person. I assess my surroundings on a daily bases but not to an analytical degree, I seem to just know my depth and scope instinctively and it actually takes a more concentrated thought process for me to sit and assess and hypothesis and deduce things about my surroundings. It seems much more natural to just go with it. Though in going over all of these theories and approaches I sense some overlaps in each and it seems to me that the best theory or approach would be the one that incorporated aspects of each into one. It also seems clear that all of these are subject to the individual. Some people will resonate better with one theory/approach more so than another and that is because they perceive their sensations differently than the next person, as it should be.
Works Cited/Reviewed:
- McLeod, S. A. (2007). Visual Perception - Simply Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/perception-theories.html