The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems Gibson Pdf Reader

Posted on

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems James Jerome Gibson Snippet view - 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems James Jerome Gibson Snippet view - 1966. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems James J. Gibson Snippet view - 1966. Perception has two poles, the subjective and objective, and information is available to specify both. One perceives the environment and coperceives oneself” J.J. Gibson 1 (p. 126) Main Text The world provides a richly structured array of continuously changing multimodal stimulation to all our senses.

The synthesis of length within and between perceptual systems

0Copyright /97/,PsychonomicIoumals.Lnc., Austin, Texas1Perception & Psychophysics,1971, Vol. 9 (4)2EUGENE ABRAVANEL The George Washington University,Washington, D.C. 200063111is research was supported by Biomedical Sciences Support Grant f'R-07019-03 from the General Research Support Branch,DivisionTwo experiments are reported comparing the accuracy of Ss in making length combinations visually, haptically, and intersensorally. It was hypothesized that there would not be significant differences among the three conditions for perceptual combinations of length, because length is a highly familiar dimension that is capable of being cognitively organized. The hypothesis was supported, and the findings were related to other research comparing intra- and intersensory processes.-tape (a metal circular ruler) which wasfastened behind an opening (1 x 33 cm) inthe Masonite front of the device, The Sinstructed the E in adjusting the length ofline to match his perception.In order to separate vision from haptics,an occlusion box measuring 50 x 30 ernwas used. The S was able to place his handsbeneath the screening curtain in the frontend of the box and haptic ally explore forlength with vision occludedProcedureThe Ss were assigned randomly to one ofthree conditions of length combination.Under each condition, 10 estimates wereperceived visual and haptic lengths were made by adjusting the variable-lengthboth linear functions of physical length, device to match the perceived estimate ofwith very similar exponents. combined lengths.The question posed here is how well Ss The length pairings under all conditionssynthesize lengths visually, haptically, and were as follows: 6 + 6 em, 7.5 + 7.5 em, 9between these two perceptual systems. + 9 ern, 13 + 13 em, 15 + IS em, 9 + 6 em,Research to date suggests two reasonable 6 + 13cm, 7.5 + 13cm, 15 + 9cm, 15 +but contradictory outcomes. One 7.5 em, The order of paired combinationshypothesis would predict greatest accuracy was randomized across Ss. The threefor intramodal visual combinations, while conditions were as follows:considering both intramodal haptic Condition /: Visual-visual combination.combinations and intermodal combinations Two bars were placed at eye level, with theas essentially similar. A second hypothesis, long side of each slightly oblique to the S'sthe one herein accepted, is that no line of regard and at a separation of 3 ft sosignificant differences among conditions, that the S could not see both objects atvisual, haptic, or intermodal, would result once in his visual field.in the estimation of length combinations. Condition 2: Haptic-visual combination.Reasonably short lengths (no more than One bar was placed at eye level, with thethe combined span of the two hands) are long side slightly oblique to the S's line ofreadily perceivable haptically and visually. regard (as in Condition I) at a distance ofMoreover, the adult perceiving length is 1Y2 ft from the S. The other bar was placedlikely to unitize a length and associatively behind the occlusion screen for the S tocompose its parts in a way that relies more perceive haptically with both hands.heavily on cognitive schemes than on Condition 3: Haptic-haptic combinationpeculiarities specific to each perceptual The two bars were placed behind thesystem (cf. Gibson, 1966, for a similar occlusion screen obliquely to the S and atview). Therefore, visual, haptic, or different elevations (3-in. difference) inhaptic-visual combinations would be order to prevent him from directly joiningreferred to a common schematization and the two lengths. Otherwise, the S was freewould be expected to be roughly to perceive the lengths haptically as heequivalent in accuracy. chose.SubjectsThe Ss were 90 volunteer undergraduatestudents at The George WashingtonUniversity, with 30 Ss participating in eachcondition, Approximately equal numbersof males and females were included in eachcondition.ResultsA comparison of error levels for thethree conditions was not significant(F = 1.24, df = 2/87, p > .10). See Table l.The effect of line lengths was significant(F = 17.71, df= 9/80, P < .01), withabsolute levels of error greater for thelonger length combinations.Materials and Apparatus EXPERIMENT 2The stimulus materials consisted of a This experiment was designed to studyseries of wooden bars, 2 x 2 cm in width the same intra- and intersensory lengthand 6, 7.5, 9, and 13 ern in length. The combinations as in Experiment I, but withbars were all painted a homogeneous green drawing as the method of reproduction.color. The method of reproduction by means ofThe device used for the visual drawing is different from reprod uction byequivalence adjustment measured means of adjustment in two essential ways.42 x 10 cm and contained a variable white First, drawing requires a greater emphasisIn this paper we are reporting a studycomparing intra- and intersensoryintegration where the major concern iswith the process of actually combining orjoining a pair of percepts to construct alarger product, Le., the sum of theirindependent parts. The synthesis of partsto form larger wholes is, in one respect, afundamental perceptual achievement of themost general kind (Koffka, 1935). But,where the parts are widely separated or inlinear configurations, the organization maybe considered a higher-level perceptual andcognitive achievement. It may be likenedto the organization referred to by Birchand Lefford (1967) as 'perceptualsynthesis.' Yet, with the exception of afew studies comparing performance amongthe blind and the sighted while makinghaptic form combinations (Worchel, 1952;Juurmaa, 1969), there is little knownabout the normal ability to make hapticcombinations as compared with visualcombinations. Likewise, we have littleinformation regarding configural oradditive integrations across perceptualsystems.Findings from several studies(Abravanel, 1971; Caviness, 1964;Cashdan, 1968; Rudel & Teuber, 1964)indicate that intramodal visual equivalencematches are superior to either intrasensoryhaptic or intersensory matches. Thefindings are for adults matching shapeproperties. Conversely, a number ofresearchers (Kelvin, 1954; Kelvin & Mulik,1958) suggest that visual and hapticsystems operate equivalently, and thatintersensory matching is basically nodifferent from intrasensory matching. Inthe case of length estimation, Teghtsoonianand Teghtsoonian (1965) found thatNote-N = 90 for each experiment, with 30 Ss per condition.be approximately three times as large whenmatching was performed intersensorally ascompared to intra sensorally. This resultmay hold true for surface textures, but itwas not the case in the presentinvestigation, where Ss were dealing with afamiliar dimension, such as length. Itwould seem, therefore, that researchcomparing intra- with intersensoryperception must take account of thedimension selected for study and theextent to which it enables the S to utilizecognitive operations or strategies that arelargely independent of any specificperceptual system.on memory for the perceived combinedlengths because the S forms his impressionof the combination and then must turnaway from it in order to make anequivalent line drawing. Second, the act ofdrawing is representational and in somesense more 'active-manipulatory' thaninstructing the E to adjust a variable line tomatch a perceptual combination.Ninety Ss participated in thisexperiment, with 30 Ss in each of the threeconditions. The apparatus and the stimulusmaterials were the same as those inExperiment I, but in place of the variablelength adjustment device, the S wasprovided with a sheet of white paper(22 x 45 em) with a line ruled from end toend. With a black marker pen, he drew aline indicating his perception of thecombined lengths of the two wooden bars.A new sheet was provided for each trial.cognitively synthesizing two lengths withinand between perceptual systems has beenfound to be comparable, supporting thehypothesis of no major differences forintegrations where the dimension iswell-practiced and appropriate for vision orhaptics (as length is). Perceptual REFERENCEScombinations of the kind performed by ABRAVANEL, E. Active detection of solid shapeour Ss appear to require an active effort of iPnsfyocrhmoapthioynsicbsy, 1to9u7c1h,9a,n0d00v-is0i0on0.. Perception &syn thesis, and active-combinatorial imagery BIRCH. H. G., & LEFFORD, A. Visualseems to be at work. However, the key to differentiation, intersensory integration, andcomparability of accuracy across voluntary motor control. Monographs of theconditions may lie in the cognitive Society for Research in Child Development,operations of unitizing and composing 1967,32, Whole No. no.lengths, which occur in similar fashion BJaOnRdKMcArNos, smMo.dRaellatimoantschbientgw. eenScianntdrianmavoidaanlvisually and haptically, or when a length is Journal of Psychology, 1967,8,65-76.perceived by each system. As such, the CASHDAN, S. Visual and haptic formproce ss may be considered to be discrimination under conditions of successive'supramodal' (cf. Gibson, 1966, for a stimulation. Journal of Experimentalrelated notion). It is probably this factor Psychology, 1968,76,215-218.which chiefly accoun ts for the similarity CAoVfINEsoSSli,dJ. sAh. aVpies.ual Uanndputbalcistuhaeld pedrcoecpt otiroanlamong conditions here, by comparison dissertation, Cornell University, 1964.with other research that reports differences GIBSON, J. J. The senses considered asin accuracy, depending upon the perceptual systems. New York:perceptual systems involved and whether JUUHRouMghAtAon,- MJ. ifOflpinti,fi1c9a6ti6o.n tendency in tactualperformance is intra- or intersensory. spatial manipulation. Reports from theThe greater accuracy for adjustment Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki,than for drawing as a method of 1965, No. 68.reproduction probably resulted from the KELVIN, R. P. Discrimination of size by sightincreased memory requirement imposed by Pansdycthooulocghy.,Q1u9a5rt4e,r6ly,2J3o-u2r4n.al of Experimentalthe drawing procedure, and suggests that KELVIN, R. P., & MULlK, A. Discrimination ofactive, self-directed methods of length of sight and touch. Quarterly Journal ofreproduction are not always the most Experimental Psychology, 1958, 10. 187-192.accurate. KONFeFwKYAo,rkK: .HParricnocuirptl-eBsraocfe,G1e9s3ta5l.t psychology.Bjorkman (1967) has suggested that we RUDEL, R. G., & TEUBER, H.-L. Crossmodalrephrase the typical question and that transfer of shape discrimination by children.instead of asking whether intra sensory or Neuropsychotogia, 1964.2,1-8.intersensory matching is more accurate, it TEGHTSOONIAN, M.. & TEGHTSOONIAN, R.is more fruitful to ask whether intra- and Seen and felt length. Psychonomic Science,intersensory variances are the same or 1965,3,465-466.different. In his study, Bjorkman (1967) WORCHEL, P. Space perception and orientationhad Ss match sandpapers of different grit 6in5.thNeo.bl1in5d.. Psychological Monographs, 1951,within and across perceptual systems. Thevariances of matched stimuli were found to (Accepted for publication August J3. J970.)
BornJanuary 27, 1904
McConnelsville, Ohio, U.S.
DiedDecember 11, 1979 (aged 75)
NationalityAmerican
Alma materNorthwestern University, Princeton University
Known forTheory of affordance
Scientific career
FieldsExperimental psychology, visual perception
Doctoral advisorHerbert Langfeld
InfluencesEdwin B. Holt, Kurt Koffka, Eleanor J. Gibson

James Jerome Gibson (/ˈɡɪbsən/; January 27, 1904 – December 11, 1979), was an Americanpsychologist and one of the most important contributors to the field of visual perception. Gibson challenged the idea that the nervous system actively constructs conscious visual perception, and instead promoted ecological psychology, in which the mind directly perceives environmental stimuli without additional cognitive construction or processing.[1] A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked him as the 88th most cited psychologist of the 20th century, tied with John Garcia, David Rumelhart, Louis Leon Thurstone, Margaret Floy Washburn, and Robert S. Woodworth.[2]

  • 1Biography
  • 2Major contributions and works

Biography[edit]

Early life[edit]

James Jerome Gibson was born in McConnelsville, Ohio, on January 27, 1904, to Thomas and Gertrude Gibson.[3] He was the oldest of three children and had two younger brothers, Thomas and William.[4] Gibson's father worked for Wisconsin Central Railroad, and his mother was a schoolteacher.[5] Because his father worked on the railroad, Gibson and his family had to travel and relocate quite frequently, moving throughout the Dakotas and Wisconsin until they finally settled down in the Chicago suburb of Wilmette.[4]

When Gibson was a boy, his father would take him out on train rides. Gibson recalled being absolutely fascinated by the way the visual world would appear when in motion. In the direction of the train, the visual world would appear to flow in the same direction and expand. When Gibson looked behind the train, the visual world would seem to contract. These experiences sparked Gibson's interest in optic flow and the visual information generated from different modes of transportation. Later in life, Gibson would apply this fascination to the study of visual perception of landing and flying planes.[5]

Education and career[edit]

Gibson began his undergraduate career at Northwestern University, but transferred after his freshman year to Princeton University, where he majored in philosophy. While enrolled at Princeton, Gibson had many influential professors including Edwin B. Holt who advocated new realism, and Herbert S. Langfeld who had taught Gibson's experimental psychology course. After taking Langfeld's course, Gibson decided to stay at Princeton as a graduate student and pursued his Ph.D. in psychology with Langfeld serving as his doctoral adviser.[5] His doctoral dissertation focused on memory of visual forms, and he received his Ph.D. in 1928.[4]

E. B. Holt, who was taught by William James, inspired Gibson to be a radical empiricist.[6] Holt was a mentor to Gibson. While Gibson may not have directly read William James’ work, E. B. Holt was the connecting factor between the two. Holt’s theory of molar behaviorism brought James philosophy of radical empiricism into psychology. Heft argues that Gibson’s work was an application of William James’.[6] Gibson believed that perception is direct and meaningful. He discussed the meaning of perception through his theory of affordances. Gibson also was influenced by James' neutral monism, nothing is solely mental or physical.

Gibson started his career at Smith College where he taught psychology. While at Smith, Gibson encountered two influential figures in his life, one of which was the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka. Although Gibson did not agree with Gestalt psychology, he nevertheless agreed with Koffka's belief that the primary investigations of psychology should be problems related to perception.[7] The other important figure Gibson met during his time at Smith College was his wife, Eleanor Jack, who became a prominent psychologist known for her investigations such as the 'visual cliff.'[4][8] The two were married on September 17, 1932, and later had two children, James Jerome Jr. in 1940 and Jean Grier in 1943.[4]

In 1941, Gibson entered the U.S. Army, where he became the director of a unit for the Army Air Forces' Aviation Psychology Program during World War II. Of particular interest to him was the effect flying an aircraft had on visual perception.[5] He used his findings to help develop visual aptitude tests for screening out pilot applicants. He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1946.[4] After the war ended, he returned to Smith College for a short period during which he began writing his first book, The Perception of the Visual World, in which he discussed visual phenomena such as retinal texture gradient and retinal motion gradient.[5] Before the book was published in 1950, Gibson moved to Cornell University where he continued to teach and conduct research for the rest of his life.[citation needed]

Honors and awards[edit]

After publication of his book in 1950, Gibson won the Warren Medal as a member of the Society of Experimental Psychologists in 1952.[7] He also became a division president for the American Psychological Association (APA) and for the Eastern Psychological Association. Among many of Gibson's other honors were receiving the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award in 1961, becoming a Fulbright fellow at Oxford University, a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, and a fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. Gibson was elected into the National Academy of Sciences in 1967.[7] Gibson received honorary doctorates by Edinburgh and Uppsala Universities.[7]

Gibson died in Ithaca, New York on December 11, 1979. He was 75 years old.[7]

Major contributions and works[edit]

The senses considered as perceptual systems gibson pdf reader pdf

Gibson's approach to visual perception[edit]

The question driving Gibson's research on perception was 'how do we see the world as we do?'. This instigated his empirical research, the environment, and how the individual experiences said environment.[9] There were two primary ways in which James J. Gibson reformed the way psychology views perception. The first is that the templates of our stimulation are affected by a moving organism. This was shown through his research on optic arrays. Secondly, he formulated the idea of three-dimensional space being conceptual. To Gibson, perception is a compilation of the person's environment and how the person interacts with it.[10]

James Gibson's major contributions throughout his career were published in three of his major works:: The Perception of the Visual World (1950), The Sense Considered as Perceptual Systems (1966), and The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (1979).[11]

Much of Gibson's work on perception derives from his time spent in the U.S. Army Air Force. Here, he delved into thoughts on how imperative perception is on daily functions.[9] His work may be the first to show a distinct difference between types of perception. Form perception, on one hand, is a display of two static displays, whereas object perception, involves one of the displays to be in motion.[9] Gibson laid down the base for empirical perception research throughout his lifetime. He did work on adaptation and inspection of curved lines, which became a precursor for perceptual research later.[10] His basic work rejected the perspective that perception in and of itself is meaningless, he instead argued meaning is independent of the perceiver. He claimed that the environment decides perception, and that meaning is in what the environment 'affords' the observer.[12]

The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems Gibson Pdf Reader 1

Pdf

Major works[edit]

In his classic work The Perception of the Visual World (1950) he rejected the then fashionable theory of behaviorism for a view based on his own experimental work, which pioneered the idea that animals 'sampled' information from the 'ambient' outside world. He studied the concept of optical flow (later published as part of his theory of affordance). According to Gibson, one determines the optical flow (which can be described as the apparent flow of the movement of objects in the visual field relative to the observer) using the pattern of light on the retina.[13] The term 'affordance' refers to the opportunities for action provided by a particular object or environment. This concept has been extremely influential in the field of design and ergonomics: see for example the work of Donald Norman who worked with Gibson, and has adapted many of his ideas for his own theories.[14]

In his later work (such as, for example, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (1979)), Gibson became more philosophical and criticised cognitivism in the same way he had attacked behaviorism before. Gibson argued strongly in favour of direct perception and direct realism (as pioneered by the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid), as opposed to cognitivist indirect realism. He termed his new approach ecological psychology. He also rejected the information processing view of cognition. Gibson is increasingly influential on many contemporary movements in psychology, particularly those considered to be post-cognitivist.[10]

Gibson did work on perception with his wife, Eleanor J Gibson. Together they proposed perceptual learning as a process of seeing the differences in the perceptual field around an individual. An early example of this is the classic research study done by Eleanor Gibson and R. D. Walk, the visual cliff experiment. In this experiment an infant that was new to crawling was found to be sensitive to depth of an edge.[9]

Ecology and perception[edit]

Gibson believed that the environment and animals are not separable items.[12] He stated that without the environment animals cannot survive and without animals there is no environment. The environment is what we perceive at any given moment. All animals are able to perceive. Humans perceive the environment directly.[6][15] This is why we are unable to perceive things in the environment that are too small to see, such as an atom.

Affordances[edit]

Gibson coined the noun affordance.[16] For Gibson the noun affordance pertains to the environment providing the opportunity for action. Affordances require a relationship in which the environment and the animal can work together. An example is that mankind has changed the environment to better suit our needs. When coming across Earth's natural steep slopes, man designed stairs in order to afford walking. In addition, objects in the environment can also afford many different behaviors, such as lifting or grasping. Gibson argued that when we perceive an object we observe the object's affordances and not its particular qualities. He believed that perceiving affordances of an object is easier than perceiving the many different qualities an object may have. Affordances can be related to different areas of the habitat as well. Some areas of the world allow for concealing while some allow for foraging.

Social affordances[edit]

He expanded on the affordance theory to include social affordances.[16] He believed affordances were important to understanding social behaviors. Our behavior depends on what we perceive the other person intentions to be. It is not about the behavior itself but how we perceived their behavior. This is how misconceptions occur, we misinterpret another individual's behavior. Gibson stated that behavior affords behavior. Therefore, if someone is being nice to you then this affords a nice reaction. This can be applied to why humans get married or form friendships.

Legacy[edit]

James J. Gibson left a lasting impact on the way that psychologists and philosophers conceptualize perception and action. He rejected the behaviorists' assumptions that learning involves the formation of associations between stimuli and responses, adopting instead a wholistic view related to that of the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka with whom he had contact. He argued that the perceived environment is not composed by stitching together such elements as shapes and edges, but rather that the world is made up of meaningful features that are experienced continuously as wholes.[9] He will perhaps be best remembered for his theory of affordances, which some theorists have suggested provides a fundamental way to understand that duality of mind and external reality.

Previous theories of sensory meaning have argued that perceptions are separate and private from one another.[15] This stance placed all of the perceptive meaning on the individual, which meant there was no way to find common ground on individuals' shared experiences. Gibson contended that when stimulus information is being sought out, meaningful properties of that stimulus are also perceived relationally.[9] For instance, a softball affords 'throwing' if the observer notices that the ball fits well in a person's hand, and that the weight allows it to be thrown.[9] The training of aviators is a practical application of Gibson's views, which such suggest that training should be as realistic and unconstrained as possible.

The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems Gibson Pdf Reader Free

Gibson's work indicates the interactivity of observers and the natural environment, and has been dubbed ecological psychology as a result. Gibson also argued that perceptual experimenters were misguided in their control over physical variables of stimuli, and the display of stimulus information should be manipulated instead. This stance breaks from traditional thought in that Gibson posited that fundamentally sound experiments could be conducted in the external world without having to construct artificial laboratory settings.[citation needed]

Publications[edit]

  • Gibson, James Jerome., Crooks, Laurence E. 'A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving.' The American journal of psychology 51.3 (1938): 458 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1416145
  • Gibson, J.J. & Gibson, E. (1955). Perceptual learning: differentiation or enrichment? Psyc. Rev., 62, 32–41.
  • Gibson, J.J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Gibson, J.J. (1960). The Concept of the Stimulus in Psychology. The American Psychologist 15/1960, 694–703.
  • Gibson, J.J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN0-313-23961-4
  • Gibson, J.J. (1972). A Theory of Direct Visual Perception. In J. Royce, W. Rozenboom (eds.). The Psychology of Knowing. New York: Gordon & Breach.
  • Gibson, J.J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances (pp. 67–82). In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (eds.). Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.ISBN0898599598 (1986)
  • Gibson, J.J. (1982). Reasons for Realism: Selected essays of James J. Gibson, E. Reed & R. Jones (eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN978-0-89859-207-8

References[edit]

Reader
  1. ^Rutherford, Raymond E. Fancher, Alexandra (2012). Pioneers of psychology : a history (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. p. 641. ISBN978-0-393-93530-1.
  2. ^Haggbloom, Steven J.; Warnick, Renee; Warnick, Jason E.; Jones, Vinessa K.; Yarbrough, Gary L.; Russell, Tenea M.; Borecky, Chris M.; McGahhey, Reagan; et al. (2002). 'The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century'. Review of General Psychology. 6 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139.
  3. ^Office of the Home Secretary, National Academy of Sciences, Biographical Memoirs, Volume 63
  4. ^ abcdefHochberg, Julian. 'James Jerome Gibson: 1904-1979'(PDF). National Academy of Sciences.
  5. ^ abcdeKazdin, Alan E., ed. in chief (2000). Encyclopedia of Psychology, Vol. 3. London: Oxford University Press. p. 493. ISBN978-1-55798-652-8.
  6. ^ abcChemero, Anthony (February 2003). 'Radical empiricism through the ages'. PsycCRITIQUES. 48 (1): 18–21. doi:10.1037/000698.
  7. ^ abcdeNeisser, Ulric (1981). 'Obituary: James J. Gibson (194-1979)'. American Psychologist. 36 (2): 214–215. doi:10.1037/h0078037.
  8. ^Fancher, Rutherford, Raymond E., Alexandra (2012). Pioneers of Psychology. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. p. 178. ISBN978-0-393-93530-1.
  9. ^ abcdefghttp://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/James_Jerome_Gibson.aspx
  10. ^ abc'Ecological Psychology'. MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Archived from the original on 2015-11-08.
  11. ^Doorey, Marie. 'James J. Gibson'. Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.. Retrieved 7 February 2017.
  12. ^ abGibson, James (2013-05-13). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Google Scholar. Cornell University. ISBN9781135059736. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
  13. ^Alex Huk. (1999) 'Seeing Motion: Lecture Notes.' pp. 5
  14. ^D. A. Norman (1999), Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions (6, 3), 38–43
  15. ^ abHeft, Harry (June 2013). 'An ecological approach to psychology'(PDF). Review of General Psychology. 17 (2): 162–167. CiteSeerX10.1.1.400.9646. doi:10.1037/a0032928.
  16. ^ abGibson, James (2014-04-16). The theory of Affordances. Google Scholar. Google Scholar. ISBN9781317811886. Retrieved 1 December 2014.

External links[edit]

  • Key JJG resources at: International Society for Ecological Psychology (ISEP)
  • Major centre for direct perception research: Centre for the Ecological Study of Perception and Action (CESPA)
  • Donald Norman: Affordance, Conventions and Design

The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems Gibson Pdf Reader Reviews

Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_J._Gibson&oldid=908138832'