Compare and Contrast Gibson’s and Gregory’s theories of perception

Gibsons and Gregorys theories of learning both purpose that eye-retina is important for percept. The both believe that with issue eye-retina, a person will non be adapted to crack. This is a common attitude of both of the theories of perceptual experience. The brain is concomitant by the case of SB. SB was a adult male who had been blind from birth receivable to retcharacts. When he was 52, he had an operation which restored his sight and wherefore he could becharm. Thus, this case has shown the sizeableness of eye-retina for things to be perceived.And on that pointfore, supports both of theories of perceptual experience which eye-retina is essential for perception. Gibson believes in the rate theories of perception which he utilize the guess of bottom-up bear upon to let off optical illusions whereas Gregory believes in the indirect theories of perception and he used the theory of top-down processing to explain visual illusions. The bottom-up argon based on t he impudence that we execute upwards in our digest of the visual world form canonic receptive inputs at the bottom direct towards the higher, to a great extent cognitive levels of the brain.The top-down processing theories atomic number 18 based on the assertion that we can only perceive our visual world accurately if we use stored cognition and problem-solving skills. Thus, there argon differences amongst their theories of perception. Gregorys indirect theory of perception and Gibsons direction theory of perception had guide to the ponder of nature-nurture. This is a big debate in Psychology whether perception is indomitable by genetics as proposed by Gibsons theory or whether it is learnt or determined by upbringing and loving scene as proposed by Gregorys theory.On the one hand, Nativists call back that nature is to a greater extent important factor which hatful are the products of their genetics and that we are born with veritable behaviours. On the other hand , empiricists think that take in and nurture is the more(prenominal) important factor. They think that situational factors and upbringing have a bun in the oven a greater influence on break throughcome. An eclectic approach path superpower show that it is an interaction between nature and nurture and that neither expression can specialise the full story. It whitethorn be that a genetic sensitivity to perception exists, but that situational factors in equivalent manner have to be in place for it to develop.A touch off from the above, there are a few more differences between Gibsons and Gregorys theories of perception. Gregory believes that additive processing is required for perception which more or less forms of minimise fellowship is submited to manakin off sense of the environment than just the centripetal input while Gibson believes that perception is part of an inbuilt adaptive mechanism for survival of the fittest which does not rely on stored knowledge or a way experience. Gregory believes that expectations have an jolt on perceptions which Gibson disagrees. at that place is empirical evidence funding the idea of Gregory, and this comes from a train carried out by Simons and Levin. 50% of the participants failed to realise that there was a switch of people. This is probably due to the fact that the participants had not expected a change of person. Hence, they were unable to perceive it. Furthermore, a study carried out by Selfridge likewise supports the idea of Gregory. Selfridges study demonstrates that our perceptions are mediated by our expectations as people are able to read the figures as the cat.This is because people have the expectations of the cat as they are words in common usage. These studies have shown that people truism what they have been expecting to see. Thus, the study demonstrates that expectations affect perception. And thus suggest that Gregorys theory of perception might be full instead of Gibsons. Gregory also suggests that we use context for our perceptions which Gibson disagrees. There are supporting evidences for Gregorys hypothesiss. Selfridges study has shown context effects on visual perception. This study suggests that context help perception.Similarly, Boring has demonstrated the use of top-down processing as well as the fact that context influences visual perception. These ii studies demonstrate that visual perception is influenced by context. In addition, Gregorys idea is supported by the study carried out by Warren which context influences auditory perception as well. The participants used context to discover the word in the sentence entirely. This shows the importance of context which helps to fill in the lose words. These findings suggested that it may be true that context is necessary for perception to occur successfully.These studies support Gregorys theory instead of Gibsons. Furthermore, Gregorys theory explains how we can afford errors in perception. For inst ance, we do not necessarily see spelling errors in our written work as we word- through-context. Besides, Gregory suggests that we use stored knowledge and past experience to make sense of our visual environment which Gibson does not agree. Moreover, Gregory suggested that some forms of background knowledge, through learning, are needed to make sense of the environment than just the sensory input as suggested by Gibson.Gregory verbalise that, when looking at the Muller-Lyer figure, the line on the left looks longer than that on the right. He believed that this was because we were development top-down processing and presumptuous that the figure on the left is like the corner of a room that we are in, while the figure on the right is like the corner of a grammatical construction seen from the outside. Hence, this suggested that we use context for our perceptions. He also pointed to the idea of the hollow mask. When we see a hollow mask from the inside, we perceive it as pointing ou twards, because this is what we are used to.However, there are problems with Gregorys outlook. Firstly, if we take a blood of the Muller-Lyer illusion and replace the arrows with circles, we can see that the effect still holds, even though we could not possibly be imagining the corners of room or buildings, etc. Thus, Gregorys assumption of the theory of perception might be wrong. Furthermore, Gibson argues that information form visual illusions should not be used because it is a impostor stimulus that could not happen in the real world which suggested that the theory cannot be applied in real demeanor situation.However, visual illusions do happen in real life such as trains and car wash. Even so, Gibson believes in the direct theory of perception which is an opposing theory to Gregorys. He believes that we do not need prior knowledge to perceive objects correctly. Gibson suggests that perception is shaped by biological hereditary pattern instead of what Gregory has suggested. A ccording to Warren and Hannon, participants were able to make judgements about direction using dots which support Gibsons optic break away patterns.And this demonstrates that Gibsons theory might be right instead of Gregorys. However, study carried out by Lee and Lishman has shown that adults have more experiences about the world than children and thus has cast doubt upon Gibsons theory. Also, a study carried Hahn, Anderson and Saidpour has demonstrated that regardless of which condition the participants were, they could tell direction and movement. And this finding goes against Gibsons idea of optic flow. Thus, Gibsons theory might not be right, instead, Gregorys theory might be more realistic.