Visual Perception

Understanding Visual Processing

What Is Perception?
Look around you…chairs, tables, windows. How do you actually know what they
are?

1. Our senses take in information.

2. They then pass it along to our brain.
3. Our brain starts interpreting the information to give it meaning.

And this is what we call perception!

 Let’s Test It Out!
What do you perceive?
Can you explain how and why understanding this picture is so diicult?
01
Visual
Perception
Basics
Sensation &
Perception
When we look at the world, our eyes take in
information about the size, shape, color, and
texture of objects. Such visual information is
what we call our sensation.

This information travels through the optic nerve

to the brain, where it is processed and
understood. This process of interpreting
sensory information, is called perception.
Sensation &
Perception
1. The input: Your eyes and ears (senses)

picking up physical stimuli from your

environment (light, shadow, sound).

2. The processor: These physical stimuli

travel to your brain via the nervous system,

and your brain receives them.

3. The output: Your brain processes the

physical stimuli and you instantly

recognize that the brown shape you are

seeing is actually a wooden table!

Sensation &
Perception
Therefore:

Sensation is the information that enters our

brain from our sense organs (in this topic, the
visual information our eyes see)

Perception is the way our brain makes sense of

the information from our senses (in this topic,
how our brain understands what our eyes see).

Sensation is the ‘what?’, and perception is the

‘so what?’.
What is Depth Perception?
The Ability
Make us see the world in three dimensions
(3D - Width, Height, Depth)

The Purpose
Helps us safely navigate around these
dimensions.

Example: When crossing a road, we need to

be able to accurately judge how far away cars
are from us to work out when it is safe to
cross.

The Process
Our brain uses dierent information that we
receive from our eyes, which we call ‘cues’, to
work out distance.
What is Depth Perception?

Therefore…

Depth Perception
is the ability to judge how
far away objects are from
us.

Cues
are information that
gives a hint or clue about
an item, object or
situation.
 Types of Depth Cues
Two main types: Monocular & Binocular depth cues.
Monocular depth cues require only one eye to judge depth and distance.

Examples of Monocular depth cues:

➔ Superimposition: When an object is far away, closer items can block parts of it from view. For example, if a

person walks past a parked car, the person is closer to you than the car if they partially block your view of it.

➔ Relative size: Objects appear smaller when they are farther away, so if two objects are known to be of similar

size, the smaller-looking one is farther away.

➔ Linear perspective: Parallel lines appear to get closer together the further away they get. So when you look

down a long, straight road or railway track, the two sides appear closer together in the distance.
 Types of Depth Cues
Two main types: Monocular & Binocular depth cues.
Monocular depth cues require only one eye to judge depth and distance.

Examples of Monocular depth cues:

➔ Texture gradient: Texture on the surface of an object appears less defined the further away the object is.

So when you are looking at a carpet next to you, you see individual fibers and paerns. As you look further

across the room, you see fewer fibers and more blocks of colours.

➔ Height in the plane: Objects in the distance appear to be higher up in the visual plane than objects closer to

us. So if you look at the sea from a beach, the water in the distance looks as if it has risen up above the water

near the shore.

 Types of Depth Cues
Two main types: Monocular & Binocular depth cues.
Binocular depth cues require both two eyes to judge depth and distance.

● Someone with one working eye would find it impossible to use this depth cue and may find judging depth
quite challenging.
Examples of Binocular depth cues:
➔ Stereopsis: Because you have two eyes on each side of your face, each eye sends a slightly dierent image

to your brain, and this is what we call stereopsis.

➔ When the brain receives these two dierent images, it compares them to work out how far away objects are.

➔ The bigger the dierence between the two images, the closer the object is to us.
 Let’s Apply!

Tom and Tamsie are looking for somewhere to have a picnic but the grass where
they are standing is patchy. They look up and see a lovely green area of grass
towards the back of the field they are standing in.

When they get there, though, the grass there is as patchy as it was where they had
been standing before.

Using visual cues, explain Tom and Tamsie’s mistake.

Let’s Apply!
 Visual Illusions
and Their Types
Sometimes, the information our eyes see is not easy for our
brain to understand.

Visual illusions are a ‘mistake’ of perception, where what you

think you are seeing is dierent to what you are actually seeing.
There are three types of visual illusions:

1. Fictions: Visual illusions where we perceive an object

that is not actually there.
a. Example (Kanizsa Triangle): It looks like there is
a white triangle on top of another triangle and
three dark circles. In fact, there is no white
triangle; it is just how we perceive the shapes.
 Visual Illusions
and Their Types
2. Ambiguous figures: Visual illusions where an image can

be perceived in more than one way, and all of them make

sense. There are often two or more dierent images that

can be seen, and what you see depends on how you look

at the picture.

a. Example (Leeper’s Lady): You can see a young

woman looking away or an old woman looking

down, both making sense in their own way, but

cannot be seen at the same time.

 Visual Illusions
and Their Types
2. Ambiguous figures:

b. Priming: Being exposed to a certain stimulus can

influence the way you respond to a dierent

stimulus later.

Example:

➔ Talk to a person about rabbits, then look at the illusion

shown. Do they see the rabbit first?

➔ Talk to a dierent person about ducks, then show them

the illusion. Does this make them see the duck first?
 Visual Illusions
and Their Types
3. Distortions: Visual illusions where the properties of an

object appear to have changes or are dierent from

reality. Objects can appear to be dierent sizes when

they are the same, or straight lines may appear curved.

a. Example (Müller-Lyer illusion): Two horizontal

lines of the same length have dierent arrow

shapes at the ends. One line appears shorter

than the other, even though they are equal.

 Visual Constancies

Shape Constancy
Visual Constancy
Is the ability to

understand that the properties

of an object stay the same even

when the size, shape or colour Colour Constancy

of an object appears to change

because of environmental

conditions.

Size Constancy
 Visual Constancies

➔ Shape constancy: The ability to hold an object’s shape constant in your mind, even when its
appearance changes.
◆ Example: When you look at a closed door, it appears as a large rectangle.
◆ If you open the door, the varying angles make that rectangle look like a dierent shape
(a trapezoid).
◆ Your brain will still perceive the door as a rectangle because the shape is held constant.

➔ Colour constancy: The ability of our perceptual system to hold a constant image of an
object’s colour, even when the colour seen by our eye appears to alter.
◆ As light levels change, colours might seem to get darker, or in bright light, they seem
faded. But our brain works this out an holds the colour as being the same.
 Visual Constancies

➔ Colour Constancy:
 Visual Constancies

➔ Size constancy: The ability of our brain to hold a constant image of an object’s size even when
it appears to be geing smaller.
◆ When objects get further away, the actual size they appear to be will seem to get
smaller.
◆ We do not perceive the object as shrinking because we hold an image of its actual size.
◆ Example: If two people are in a corridor, the person further away creates a very small
image in your eye. However, you seem them as a normal-sized person far away, rather
than a tiny person.
02
Theories of
Perception
Gibson's (1966) Direct Theory of Perception
➔ Direct Theory of Perception: An explanation that says we perceive the world around us by using the

information taken directly from the world through our eyes. This is what we will eventually call boom-up

processing.

➔ Boom-up processing: Taking information in through our eyes and sending this to our brain to be

processed; then the object in front of us can be perceived and understood.

➔ Sensory-input: Information that enters through the sense organs; in the case of perception, this is visual

information entering through the eyes.

➔ Optic array: The paerns of light that enter the eye to give a variety of visual information about the

environment, such as colour, shape and size.

Gibson's (1966) Direct Theory of Perception
➔ Optic flow: Paerns of moving light in the optic array. The paerns of moving light that we see when we, or

objects, are moving around are known as optic flow.

Gibson's (1966) Direct Theory of Perception
➔ Invariants: Visual information from the environment that stays the same. They help us keep a constant

picture of objects even when the image entering our eyes changes.

◆ Example (Height Ratio): The ratio of an object’s height from its base to its top remains an invariant.

● When objects are in the distance, they look smaller than when they are close up.

● However, the size theory appear will still be in the same ratio to their height.

➔ Aordances: Clues about what an object or item could be used for based on its visual appearance. We use

the size, shape, and angles of items in our environment to work out a sensible suggestion for their use.

◆ Example (A Chair): By looking at the structure and the height of the seat in relation to the back, it

looks like an object that should be sat on.

● Therefore, the chair aords siing.

Gibson's (1966) Direct Theory of Perception
Strengths of this theory:

1. Explains visual illusion: It explains why we constantly fall for illusions even when we have seen them before.

Because we perceive directly from the information in front of us, we still see the illusion every time.

2. Real-life application: The theory is used to train pilots. Special markings on runways help pilots accurate

perceive their distance and speed to ensure a safe landing.

3. Research support: William Warren (1984) found that people judge if a step is “climbable” based on their own

leg length. This supports the idea of aordances, and that we perceive objects in relation to our own body

size.
Gibson's (1966) Direct Theory of Perception
Weaknesses of this theory:

1. Reductionist: A weakness is that the theory is reductionist. Gibson believed perception was only based on

environmental information and ignored the importance of past experiences.

2. Contradictory Evidence: Research by Haber and Levin (2001) showed the people are more accurate at

judging distances for well-known objects. This suggests we actually do rely on past information when

perceiving the world.

Gregory's (1970) Constructivist Theory of
Perception
➔ Constructivist Theory of Perception: A theory of perception that claims we perceive the world around us

using information previously stored in our brain from past experiences. This is what we will eventually call

top-down processing.

➔ Top-down processing: Using information already stored in our brain to interpret sensory information that

enters through our eyes.

➔ Perceptual hypothesis/hypotheses: An estimate or guess of what is most likely to have been lost from the

available visual information; this helps people to ‘fill in the gaps’ of what they can see so that it makes sense

(inferences).

➔ Inferences: Conclusions drawn from the information that is available.

Gregory's (1970) Constructivist Theory of
Perception
➔ Prior knowledge: Information stored from past experiences of visual perception.

◆ Example: If we go into an oice, for example, there are certain things we might expect to see, such as

a printer, a desk and a stapler.

◆ So if we went into a room and saw these things, we might infer that it is an oice because this

hypothesis makes the most sense based on our prior knowledge gained from past experiences of

oices.
 Gregory's (1970) Constructivist Theory of
Perception
Strengths of this theory:

1. Explains visual illusion: It helps us understand why we see illusions. If an image can be seen in two ways,

the brain switches between two hypotheses that both make sense.

2. Research support (prior knowledge): Haber and Levin (2001) found people are beer at judging the size of

familiar objects (like a bowling ball or beer bole). This shows we use previous experience to perceive the

world.
 Gregory's (1970) Constructivist Theory of
Perception
Weaknesses of this theory:

1. Ignores innate ability: It focuses too much on experience. It does not explain how 9-minute-old babies can

already recognize and follow a human face (Goren et al., 1975). This suggests we are born with some ability

to perceive.

2. Low ecological validity: Most evidence comes from controlled experiments. In the real world, perception is

more complex and uses other senses, meaning lab results might not show how perception actually works in

daily life.
 Comparing Theories
Feature Gregory (Constructivist) Gibson (Direct)

Main Idea Perception is constructed using past Perception is direct and comes from
experience. the environment.

Processing Top-Down: Uses the brain/memory to Boom-Up: Uses sensory data exactly
"fill in gaps." as it is.

Prior Essential to make sense of the world. Not needed; the environment provides
Knowledge all the info.

Visual They happen because the brain They are rare or artificial; we perceive
Illusions makes a wrong guess. the real world clearly.

Key Term Perceptual Hypothesis (A "best Aordances (What an object oers us).
guess").
03
Factors
Influencing
Perception
Perceptual Set: Motivation, Expectation,
Emotion, and Culture

Perceptual set: a tendency to interpret information in a particular way based on past experience or other
information around us at the time (our ‘readiness’ to see something).
➔ When we are hungry, for example, we notice food adverts much more quickly than when we are full.
➔ Perceptual set explains why ambiguous figures are seen dierently depending on the context (how
and where we see them) or how we are feeling at the time.
Perceptual Set: Motivation, Expectation,
Emotion, and Culture

Motivation: The way we perceive something depends on our needs or wants at the time we see it.
➔ The Study (Solley & Haigh, 1957):
◆ Children were asked to draw Santa Claus just before Christmas and again after Christmas.
◆ Children drew Santa larger before Christmas than they did after Christmas.
◆ The reason was because they were excited and wanted Christmas to arrive, their motivation caused
them to perceive and draw Santa as more significant and larger.
Perceptual Set: Motivation, Expectation,
Emotion, and Culture

Expectation: We perceive things based on what we expect to see in a specific situation or location.
The Study (Bruner & Minturn, 1955):
◆ Researchers used an ambiguous figure that could be a ‘13’ or a ‘B’.
◆ When surrounded by numbers, people saw the number ‘13’.
◆ When surrounded by leers, people saw the leer ‘B’.

When we see an object surrounded by other things, it triggers a memory of what usually ‘goes together’.
➔ This is called priming. It prepares our brain to see specific things based on the surroundings.
➔ Priming influences our perceptual set, making us more likely to interpret an object in a way that matches the
environment.
Perceptual Set: Motivation, Expectation,
Emotion, and Culture

Emotion: The mood we are in can change how we interpret the world around us.
➔ Heightened Sensitivity: If you are already feeling afraid (e.g., after a scary movie), you are more likely to
perceive a simple shadow or a small noise as something threatening.
The Study (Liu et al., 2012):
◆ Researches tested patients with depression to see how they perceived faces.
◆ Depressed patients recognized sad and angry expressions much faster than happy ones.
Perceptual Set: Motivation, Expectation,
Emotion, and Culture

Culture: Your background and where you grow up can change how you perceive visual information, especially
depth and distance.
➔ Example: People living in dense forests with no open views may not learn to use distance cues. Instead of
seeing a distance object as far away, they might see it as just very small.
The Study (Hudson, 1960):
◆ African Bantu participants were shown a 2D drawing of a hunter, a deer, and an elephant.
◆ They often though the man was spearing the elephant, even though the elephant was drawn farther
away in the background.
◆ Because their culture did not use 3D pictures or wide-open spaces, they didn’t read the depth cues
(like relative size) the same way Westerners do.
Perceptual Set: Motivation, Expectation,
Emotion, and Culture
The Study (Hudson, 1960):
 04
Key Studies on Perception
Haber and Levin (2001)
Study on Size and
Distance Perception
❖ Haber and Levin argued that size

perception and distance perception are

two separate processes.

❖ They believed that when we judge the size

of a familiar object, we use our memory of

that object rather than just the visual

information in front of us.

 Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Experiment 1
Aims of the Study:
1. To see if objects could be separated into two categories
a. Token invariant: Objects that have very lile variation in size (e.g., a bowling ball).
b. Token variable: Objects that have a lot of variation in size (e.g., a Christmas tree).
2. To see if participants were more accurate at estimating the size of token invariant objects from memory.

Procedure:
➔ Participants: 109 male university students from the USA.
➔ Task: Participants completed a questionnaire where they had to estimate the height of 50 familiar objects in
feet and inches.
➔ The List: Researches used 30 of these objects where they had already collected 10 real-world
measurements to check for size variation.
Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Experiment 1
Results:
➔ Categories: The objects were split into 15 token variable items (Christmas trees, teddy bears, TVs) and 15
token invariant items (basketballs, bowling balls, beer boles).
➔ Accuracy: Overall, participants were good at estimating the size of all familiar objects.
➔ The key finding: Participants were most accurate at estimating the size of token invariant objects. Their
guesses for variable objects (like trees) showed much more variation.

❖ The results of the study seem to suggest that when people are familiar with objects that naturally vary very
lile in size from one example to another, they are able to accurately estimate the object’s size even when
they cannot see it.
❖ This suggests that our past experience of objects is important in judging the size of an object.
 Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Experiment 2
Aims of the Study:
1. To see if familiarity and size knowledge are used to judge distance.
2. To see if participants judge distance more accurately for token invariant objects than for token variable or
familiar objects.

Procedure:
➔ Participants: 9 male university students (dierent from Experiment 1).
➔ Seing: A large open field divided into sections.
➔ Objects: 15 token invariant, 15 token variable, 15 unfamiliar objects (colored cardboard shapes).
➔ Task: Participants stood at a viewing point and estimated both the size and the distance of all 45 objects.
➔ Questionnaires: After the field test, they rated their familiarity with the objects and estimated their sized
again from memory.
Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Experiment 2
Results:
● Perception of Size:

➔ Invariant accuracy: Participants were most accurate at estimating the size of token invariant

objects.

➔ Memory vs. Reality: Size estimates were just as accurate whether the participants looked at the

object or did it from memory.

➔ Unfamiliar objects: Participants were surprisingly good at guessing the size of the cardboard

shapes, even without prior experience.

Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Experiment 2
Results:
● Perception of Distance:

➔ Short distance (0-50m): Accuracy was very high for all objects. Familiarity did not make much

dierence when things were close.

➔ Far distance (50-100m): Accuracy dropped overall. However, participants were more accurate with

token invariant objects than the other two types.

➔ Unfamiliar objects: These were the hardest to judge at a distance because participants had no prior

experience to use as a reference.

Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Experiment 2
Results:

❖ The results of Experiment 2 suggest that we use familiar size information to help us when judging distance.

❖ This means that size perception has an influence on depth perception, possibly because we draw on past

experiences to estimate how far away objects are.

 Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Overall Conclusion:
1. The results show that we use our familiarity with objects to help us perceive both their size and their

distance.

2. When objects have very lile variation in size (token invariant), we use our past experiences to judge them

more accurately than objects that vary in size.

3. Haber and Levin concluded that perceiving size and perceiving depth may be controlled by dierent mental

processes.

4. They suggested more studies are needed to fully understand how these dierent processes work and how

the brain controls size perception specifically.

 Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Strengths of this Study:

Visual screening: In Experiment 2, all participants were tested to ensure they had normal vision. This controlled for

physical dierences in eyesight, making the data more valid and reliable.

Verified familiarity: The researchers didn’t just guess which objects were familiar, they had the objects

independently judged before the study. This ensured the experiment actually tested the influence of prior

knowledge.
 Haber and Levin (2001) Study on Size and
Distance Perception
Weaknesses of this Study:

Small, biased sample: Experiment 2 only used 9 male students. This is a very small group making it hard to

generalize the findings to the wider population or to know if females would perceive size and distance dierently.

Individual dierences: Even though the objects were ‘familiar’, some participants may have had much more

experience with specific items than others. Someone who plays basketball every day would likely be much more

accurate with a basketball than someone who doesn’t, which could skew results.
Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect

➔ Research suggests that when people try to redraw an object they saw earlier, the image is often

distorted. These changes often happen because the object reminds the person of something more

familiar. If an object is described with a specific label (like ‘bicycle wheel’), the person is more likely

to draw it that way later.

Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect

Aims of the Study:

➔ To see if the words used to describe an ambiguous object would aect how participants later

redraw the image.

➔ The study focused on the influence of language and how visual images are perceived.
Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect
Procedure:
➔ Participants: 95 people (60 females, 35 males) divided
into three groups.
➔ The visuals: 12 ‘stimulus figures’ (black line drawings)
shown on a rotating cardboard disc.
➔ The groups:
◆ Group 1 (48 people): Heard List 1 (e.g., ‘The next
picture resembles spectacles’).
◆ Group 2 (38 people): Heard List 2 (e.g., ‘The next
picture resembles dumb-bells’).
◆ Group 3 (9 people): The control group saw the
pictures but heard no words.
Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect

Procedure:

➔ Task: Participants had to redraw the pictures as clearly as possible. If they forgot any, they could

view the pictures again until they could draw all 12.
Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect
Results:
➔ The researchers rated the drawings on a scale of 1 to 5. They
focused on the drawings rated 5 (those that had completely
changed from the original):
◆ Group 1: 74% of the drawings resembled the word/label
they had heard.
◆ Group 2: 73% of the drawings resembled the world/label
they had heard.
◆ Control group: Only 45% resembled the items named in
the word lists.
Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect
Results:

❖ The results of the study seem to show that the way a visual image is described to someone will

aect how they reproduce that image when asked to draw it.

❖ This suggests that the words read to the participants aected the way the picture was

perceived.
Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect
Strengths of this Study:

Control group: The researchers used a group that heard no words. This allowed them to prove that it

was the language causing the distortions rather than the drawings just being naturally confusing or

ambiguous.

Independent rating: Two researchers rated the drawings separately to ensure reliability. If they

disagreed, a third researcher was brought in. This made the scoring more objective and consistent.
Carmichael, Hogan and Walter (1932) Study
on Language Effect
Weaknesses of this Study:

Unequal exposure: Participants could view the images as many times as they needed (between 2

and 8 times) until they could draw them. This is a weakness because those who saw the images more

often might have been more accurate, making the results unreliable.

Researcher bias: The people rating the drawings were the same researchers who knew the aims of

the study. They might have subconsciously biased their scores to make the results fit their

expectations (e.g., seeing a ‘spectacle’ shape where there wasn’t really one).
That’s all!
Thank you for aending &
best of luck!