To add to the discussion, the standard reference for visual perception in
cognitive science is the work of the David Marr who died young but brilliant.
His book is
Marr, David (1982)
Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and
Processing of Visual Information, WH Freeman, San Francisco .
This work still forms the problematic for cog sci approaches. He is criticised
for his weakness in the field of objwect p[erception in the real world. James
J Gibsob, slightly earlier, sets out an alternative view in
Gibson, James J (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Haughton
Mifflin, Boston.
Good short accounts are available in Howard Gardner's The Minds New Science
and Philip Johnson-Laird's The Computer and the Mind
For what its worth, I feel the cognitive approach, especially Gibson's, lacks
an understanding of the social nature of perception. Gibson for example
attempts to understand triangulation of stereoscopic vision without reference
to the matching of eyelines undertaken by groups, the matching which I belive
is central to the suture effect.
Randall Fehr wrote:
> I've just joined the list and notice in the introductory message that one
> of the appropriate/suggested topics is Phi effect and persistence of
> vision, different theories of how perception of motion is achieved with a
> succession of images. I have read the Aumont book _The Image_ where
> persistence of vision is discredited in favor of the Phi effect. Is this a
> settled issue?
>
> Randall Fehr, Seattle USA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|