Page 132 - Foundations of Cognitive Psychology : Core Readings
P. 132

136   Philip G. Zimbardo and Richard J. Gerrig

                     same event. When someone was singing, he might see a mouth move and
                     hear a song, but it was as if the sound had been dubbed with the wrong
                     tape in a foreign movie.
                      To see the parts of an event as a whole, Dr. Richard needed some com-
                     mon factor to serve as ‘‘glue.’’ For example, if the fragmented person
                     moved, so that all parts went in the same direction, Dr. Richard would
                     then perceive the parts reunited into a complete person. Even then, the
                     perceptual ‘‘glue’’ would sometimes result in absurd configurations. Dr.
                     Richard would frequently see objects of the same color, such as a banana,
                     a lemon, and a canary, going together even if they were separated in
                     space. People in crowds would seem to merge if they were wearing the
                     same colored clothing. Dr. Richard’s experiences of his environment were
                     disjointed, fragmented, and bizarre—quite unlike what he had been used
                     to before his problems began (Marcel, 1983).
                  There was nothing wrong with Dr. Richard’s eyes or with his ability to analyze
                the properties of stimulus objects—he saw the parts and qualities of objects
                accurately. Rather, his problem lay in synthesis—putting the bits and pieces of
                sensory information together properly to form a unified, coherent perception of
                a single event in the visual scene. His case makes salient the distinction be-
                tween sensory and perceptual processes. It also serves to remind you that both
                sensory analysis and perceptual organization must be going on all the time
                even though youare unawareofthe waytheyare workingoreven that they
                are happening.
                  Identification and recognition, the third stage in this sequence, assigns meaning
                to percepts. Circular objects ‘‘become’’ baseballs, coins, clocks, oranges, and
                moons; people may be identified as male or female, friend or foe, movie star or
                rock star. At this stage, the perceptual question ‘‘What does the object look
                like?’’ changes to a question of identification—‘‘What is this object?’’—and to
                a question of recognition—‘‘What is the object’s function?’’ To identify and
                recognize what something is, what it is called, and how best to respond to it
                involves higher level cognitive processes, which include your theories, memo-
                ries, values, beliefs, and attitudes concerning the object.
                  We have now given you a brief introduction to the stages of processing that
                enable you to arrive at a meaningful understanding of the perceptual world
                around you. We will devote the bulk of our attention here to aspects of per-
                ception beyond the initial transduction of physical energy. In everyday life,
                perception seems to be entirely effortless. We will try, beginning in the next
                section, to convince you that you actually do quite a bit of sophisticated pro-
                cessing, a lot of mental work, to arrive at this ‘‘illusion of ease.’’

                The Proximal and Distal Stimulus
                Imagine you are the person in figure 7.2, surveying a room from an easy chair.
                Some of the light reflected from the objects in the room enters your eyes and
                forms images on your retinas. Figure 7.2 shows what would appear to your left
                eye as you sat in the room. (The bump on the right is your nose, and the hand
                and knee at the bottom are your own.) How does this retinal image compare
                with the environment that produced it?
   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137