Psychology by Robert S. Woodworth (top rated ebook readers .TXT) 📕

the window and "see it is wet to-day", though wetness is something to be felt rather than seen; {422} having previously observed how wet ground looks, we now respond promptly to the visual appearance by knowing the indicated state of affairs. In the same way, we say that we "hear the street car", though a street car, we must admit, is not essentially a noise. What we hear, in strictness, is a noise, but we respond to the noise by perceiving the presence of the car. Responding to a stimulus presented to one sense by perceiving a fact which could only be directly presented to another sense is exemplified also by such common expressions as that the stone "looks heavy", or that the bell "sounds cracked". or that the jar of fruit "smells sour". Sense perception, then, is responding to a stimulus by knowing some fact indicated by it either directly or indirectly. Perception that is not sense perception occurs when the fact perceived is not even indirectly presented to the senses at the moment. The fact is then presented by recall; yet the fact in question is not recalled. Recall not only gives you facts previously perceived, but may provide the data, the stimulus, for fresh perception. Putting together two recalled facts, you may perceive a further fact not previously known. Remembering that you took your umbrella to the office this morning in the rain, that it was fine when you left the office, and that you certainly did not have the umbrella when you reached home, you perceive that you must have left it at the office. Reading in the paper of preparations for another polar expedition, and remembering that both poles have already been discovered, you perceive that there is something more in polar exploration than the mere race for the pole. Perception of this sort amounts to "reasoning", and will be fully considered in another chapter, while here we shall focus our attention on sense perception.

{423}

The Difference Between Perception and Sensation

If sense perception is a response to a sensory stimulus, so is sensation, and the question arises whether there is any genuine difference between these two. In the instance of "hearing the street car", the difference is fairly obvious; hearing the noise is sensation, while knowing the street car to be there is perception.

Sensation is the first response aroused by a stimulus, or at least the first response that is conscious. Perception is a second response, following the sensation, and being properly a direct response to the sensation, and only an indirect response to the physical stimulus. The chain of events is: stimulus, response of the sense organ and sensory nerve, first cortical response which is sensation, second cortical response which is perception.

Conscious sensation is the response of the part of the cortex that first receives the nerve current from the sense organ stimulated, the response of the "sensory area" for the particular sense stimulated. When the eye is stimulated, the nerve current first reaches a small portion of the occipital lobe, called the visual sensory area. Without that area there is no visual sensation. When the ear is stimulated, the conscious sensation is the response of a small portion of the temporal lobe called the auditory sensory area, and without this area there is no auditory sensation. But the presence of the visual sensory area is not enough to give the visual perception of facts, nor is the presence of the auditory sensory area enough to give auditory perception. The cortical regions adjacent to the sensory areas are necessary for perception; if they are destroyed, the individual may still see, but not know the objects seen; or may still hear, but not recognize the words or tunes that he hears. If the cortical area destroyed is in the parietal {424} lobe, adjacent to the sensory area for the cutaneous and kinesthetic senses, he may still "feel" objects, but without being able to distinguish an apple from a lump of coal, or a folded newspaper from a tin pail.

Sense perception, then, is a response of areas adjacent to the sensory areas, and this response is aroused by nerve currents coming along "association fibers" from the sensory areas which are first aroused from the sense organs.

The whole chain of events, from the time the stimulus reaches the sense organ to the time the fact is perceived, occupies only a fifth or even a tenth of a second in simple cases, and the interval between the beginning of the sensation to the beginning of the perception is not over a twentieth when the fact is easily perceived. Since the sensation usually lasts for longer than this, it overlaps the perception in time, and the two conscious responses are so blended that it is difficult or impossible for introspection to separate them.

But when an unusual fact is presented, perception may lag, though sensation occurs promptly. We may be baffled and confused for an instant, and have sensation without any definite perception; or, more often, we make a rapid series of trial and error perceptions. In one instance, a noise was first heard as distant thunder, and then, correctly, as somebody walking on the floor above. In another case, a faint sound was first taken for a bird singing, then for a distant locomotive whistle, and finally for what it was, the tinny noise of a piece of metal carried in the hand and brushing against the overcoat as the person walked; this series occupied not over five seconds. On touching an object in the dark, you may feel it as one thing and another till some response is aroused that fits the known situation and so satisfies you. Such trial and error perception can be observed very frequently if one is on the watch for {425} psychological curiosities; and it justifies the distinction between sensation and perception, since the sensation remains virtually unchanged while perception changes.

Another sort of shifting perception is seen in looking steadily at the "ambiguous figures" which were considered in the chapter on attention, the cube, staircase, and others; and the "dot figures" belong here as well. [Footnote: See p. 252.] In these cases the stimulus arouses two or more different perceptions, alternately, while the sensation remains almost or quite unchanged.

Perception and Image

The experiment with ambiguous figures also gives an answer to the question whether perception consists in the addition of recalled memory images to the sensations aroused by the present stimulus. If that were so, you should, when you see the upper side of the flight of stairs, see them as wooden stairs or stone stairs, as carpeted or varnished, with shadows on them such as appear on a real flight of stairs, with a railing, or with some other addition of a similar nature; and, when the appearance changes to that of the under side of a flight of stairs, the colors, shadows, etc., should change as well. The usual report is that no such addition can be detected, and that the subject sees no filling-in of the picture, but simply the bare lines--only that they seem at one moment to be the bare outline of the upper side, and at another moment an equally bare outline of the lower side, of a flight of stairs.

So again, when you "hear the street car", you do not ordinarily, to judge from the reports of people who have been asked, get any visual or kinesthetic image of the car, but you simply know the car is there. You will quite {426} possibly get some such image, if you dwell on the fact of the car's being there, just as some persons, in talking to a friend over the telephone, have a visual image of the friend. There is no reason why such images should not be aroused, but the question is whether they are essential to perception of the fact, and whether they occur before or after the fact is perceived. Often they do not occur, and often, when they do occur, they follow the perception of the fact, being aroused by that perception and not constituting it.

Sometimes images are certainly aroused during the perception of a fact, and, blending with the present rather vague sensation, add color and filling to the picture.

Here is an instance of this which I once observed in myself, in spite of the infrequency of my visual images. Approaching a house through a wide field one winter night, and seeing a lamp shining out of a window towards me, I seemed to see the yellowish light touching the high spots in the grass around. I was surprised that the lamp should carry so far, and the next instant saw that the light spots on the ground were small patches of snow, lighted only from the clouded sky; and at this the yellow tinge of the spots vanished. I must have read the yellow color into them to fit the lamplight. The yellow was an image blending with the actual sensation. Colors tacked on to a seen object in this way are sometimes called "memory colors".

When this instance is considered carefully, however, it does not by any means indicate that the image produced the perception. I responded to the pair of stimuli--lamp shining towards me and light spots around me--by perceiving the spots as lighted by the lamp; and the color followed suit. I next saw the spots as snow, and the color vanished. It was a case of trial and error perception, with color images conforming to the perception.

Perception does not essentially consist in the recall of {427} images, but is a different sort of response--what sort, we have still to consider.

Perception and Motor Reaction

Possibly, we may surmise, perception is a motor response, completely executed or perhaps merely incipient, or at least a readiness for a certain motor response. This guess is not quite so wild as our customary sharp distinction between knowing and doing might lead us to think. When we say that reacting to a thing in a motor way is quite different from merely seeing the thing, we forget how likely the child is to do something with any object as soon as he sees what it is. We forget also how common it is for a person, in silently reading a word--which is perceiving the word--to whisper it or at least move his lips. To be sure, persons who read a great deal usually get over this habit, as the child more and more inhibits his motor response to many seen objects. But may it not be that the motor response is simply reduced to a minimum? Or, still better, may it not be that perceiving an object amounts to getting ready to do something with it? May not seeing a word always be a getting ready to say it, even if no actual movement of the vocal organs occurs? May not seeing an orange consist in getting ready to take it, peel it, and eat it? May not perceiving our friend amount to the same thing as getting ready to behave in a friendly manner, and perceiving our enemy amount to the same thing as getting on our guard against him? According to this view, perception would be a response that adjusted the perceiver to the fact perceived, and made him ready to do something appropriate.

In spite of the attractiveness of this theory of perception, it is probably not the real essence of the matter. Just as perception may change while sensation remains the same, so there may be a hesitation between two motor responses {428} to an object, without any change in the way it is perceived; and just as a block may occur between sensation and perception, so also may one occur between perception of a fact and the motor response. In other words, perception of a fact may not spell complete readiness to act upon it. The best example of