Perception concepts and theories

Perception

Research into Aspects of Perception

The issue to be reviewed and critiqued in this paper has to do with perception and attention from several perspectives and points-of-view. To wit, what research can be located in scholarly journals that show investigative studies with reference to the various aspects of perception in human experience and human interaction.

An article in the South African Journal of Psychology looks into the relationships between three dimensional spatial perception and "pass rates" in engineering graphics. The research examined the "development and evaluation" of "high imagery course materials" for students majoring in engineering. What the study was seeking was "evidence of gains in three dimensional spatial perception" as a response to engineering instruction. What's the point of this study -- and what were the bottom line findings? The authors (Potter, et al., 2009) state that over a twenty-year period this research shows that individuals' perception and mental imagery "are not fixed or culturally exclusive abilities," but rather, perception and mental imagery "respond to instruction and mediation" (Potter, p. 109).

Visualization is an important skill for university students, and Potter explains that this study was conducted in search of an answer to this question: what is the relationship (if any) between a person's ability to visualize, and that person's success in university-level courses in engineering, science, and medicine? The impetus for the main research project, which was conducted over a twenty-year span of time, was that "a number of researchers" working in South Africa (during the 1970s and 1980s) reported that university students who did not do well in three dimensional spatial perception were found to be "at risk" when it came to getting a passing grade in engineering graphics courses (Potter, p. 109).

That having been said, Potter (109) also points out that engineering students who are committed to their field, but struggling in their coursework, can be "trained to use perception and mental imagery in drawing and design tasks." By embracing Paiget's theories of perception and mental imagery, and by using Paiget's work as part of two pilot studies with small groups (13 students) of pre-university students over a two-year period, the authors verified that poor spatial perception was related to poor engineering grades. The researchers also documented that providing training in "modeling, sketching, visualization and three-dimensional representation brought those struggling students up to par in their class work (Potter 110). Having successfully concluded that there is indeed the previously mentioned relationship (poor spatial perceptions leads to poor grades), the authors conducted a study between 1980 and 2001. The "significant main effect" of the research showed that, "over and above significant differences observed between level of three dimensional spatial perception in students studying in different years," the "intervention effect" of the "high imagery engineering graphics course exerted a powerful and significant influence in the data matrix" (Potter 118).

An article titled "Is Perceived Motor competence a Constraint in Children's Action Planning?" examines "reach estimation" in children, the "perceptual and cognitive judgment of whether an object is within or out of reach" (Gabbard, et al. 2009). This article, in the Journal of Genetic Psychology, posits that a "common observation" among children (ages 7, 9, and 11-year-old children) is that they tend to "overestimate" their ability to reach an object. In other words, children in this age bracket perceive objects to be closer than they really are or they simply misjudge how far they can reach. This particular study focuses on understanding an aspect that goes into a child's planning -- as he or she is about to reach out to an object -- the authors call "perceived motor competence" (PMC). By researching a child's PMC, the authors suggest that the outcome of the research will reveal that child's "capacity to interact effectively" with his or her environment (Gabbard 152). .

For this research 41 right-handed children (13 were 7 years; 15 were 9 years; and 13 were 11 years of age) were studied. Using an overhead projector, the "maximum reach" of the children was measured and a table with a "sliding bracket frame" was built; participants were seated in an "adjustable ergonomic chair" and the article points to other specifics of the setup that are too lengthy to be presented in this paper (Gabbard 153). The way the children were tested amounted to each of them saying "yes" when they believed the target was within their reach, and obviously "no" when they thought it was out of reach for their arm length. The "score" for each participant was based on the number of correct responses out of the total "trials" of reaching (Gabbard 154). There was "significantly more error" in extrapersonal space (farther away) compared with peripersonal space (closer to the eye). This result was found throughout the experiment, regardless of age.

"Each group displayed less accuracy in extrapersonal space than in peripersonal space," the authors concluded -- leading to the generalization that "all age groups displayed an overestimation bias in extrapersonal space" (Gabbard 154). Also, the youngest group (7-year-olds) had "significantly higher" PMC scores, indicating that younger children are "typically more overconfident about their abilities" which results in "inflated self-evaluative judgments" (Gabbard 156).

Meanwhile, along the same lines as the last research project, an article in The Journal of Neuroscience (Schicke, 2007) looks into how information about the "position of a target object perceived through the senses is converted into motor commands" (Schicke 3616) so that the person can "act toward this target." The brain faces challenges in converting perceived "spatial coordinates" (e.g., targets) into "coordinates that guide the chosen effector" (normally the hand) toward those coordinates (Schicke 3616). Through the use of "functional magnetic resonance imaging," a recent study provided "compelling evidence for a representation of peripersonal space in humans." A ball was placed both near and far from the left hand of the participant with respect to both "visual and proprioceptive information" (Schicke 3616). The authors of this research placed a stimulus (hand) first on the left thigh; next the hand was placed on the shoulder, "such that the stimulus at the thigh was nor far from the hand both visually and proprioceptively." A third procedure was used, by placing a cardboard shield between the hand on the thigh and the eye of the participant; and a fourth condition was done with the hand of the participant on the shoulder and a "dummy hand" placed now on the thigh.

This study becomes gruelingly complicated and esoteric, but the outset (3617) is that the authors believe "a caudorostral gradient with respect to the kind of information used to determine the spatial relation of the stimulus to the hand" (3617). Put another way, there are neurons in the brain that have a "tactile receptive field (RF)" and these neurons respond to peripersonal space; the RF of these neurons follows the hand whenever the hand is moved, hence, the visual stimuli "near the hand are coded by the these neurons with respect to the hand, not the eyes" (3616).

Still on the subject of neurons, an article in Biological Cybernetics (Tzvetanov, 2008) explains that human perceptual skills rely on "the activity of thousands of neurons within sensory cortex" (Tzvetanov, 397). Each one of these neurons aides in the "perception of sensory information in our environment," the author explains. But how precisely do these neuronal activities indicate to the body that certain perceptual decisions should be made? (Tzvetanov, 398). That's the substance of this research, which delves into highly scientific, theoretical narrative that is difficult subject material for the layperson.

That said, he bottom line (408) is that by delineating an "information theoretic model to account for human perceptual performance" and then comparing that model to "standard decoding methods," the research determined that the brain may actually "implement statistical variance tests on neuronal population responses" (408). This research reveals groundbreaking information on how the brain actually processes information, which is a more profound concept than simply determining how neurons tell humans distance between the hand and an object.