Lecture on the topic: “Perceptual side of communication” lesson plan

Sensory-perceptual processes

Perceptive is the perceiver, to put it another way. Perception is cognition and ultimately the formation in the mind of a holistic image of an object or environmental phenomenon. It should be said right away that direct sensations and perceptions differ from each other. Despite the fact that without individual sensations that arise as a result of the action of reality on the sense organs (sensors), perception could not exist, it is not limited to them.

Sensations create the base, but perceptual is a qualitatively different process, more active and meaningful. For example, you can compare how you can simply hear sounds and listen carefully, see and purposefully look, watch someone or something.

Basic properties of perception

A large theoretical work is devoted to a detailed analysis of the sensory-perceptual organization in humans, the author is the famous Soviet psychologist B. G. Ananyev. From the point of view of specialists in this field, the following characteristic features of perception can be distinguished:

1. Objectivity: our perception is aimed at isolating a certain object from the surrounding space and studying it.
2. Structurality. For example, we can easily understand text even if its letters are rearranged. This happens due to the fact that it is the composition of what is written that is reflected, which remains the same.
3. Integrity, that is, the perception of the entire object or person as a whole, and not in separate parts.
4. Meaningfulness is the ability to understand the meaning of an image of perception, determine its specificity and assign it to any category.
5. The constancy of the properties of things, despite the environment and physical conditions in which a person perceives them.
6. Activity and selectivity of perception - preference in the cognition of some objects over others.

What is perception

The word perception comes from the Latin verb perceptio, which means to perceive, feel and analyze information received. More often used in psychology as a term that describes the ability to feel a person or feel some state.

But you can feel, perceive anything - feel the movement of tissues if we work with the body, the state of the human body, the state and position of individual internal organs, the mood of a person. You can even feel the information located in the human body and in the space around it. You can feel very different things, and we develop this ability with students in my School of Perceptual Technologies.

What does it mean to feel? We are not talking about the five senses we are used to (touch, smell, vision, taste, hearing), we are talking about the so-called sixth sense, which is called intuition. Where is this analyzer located inside us? What kind of “place” do we feel we belong to?

For example, my students learn to identify problems in the physical body. These are very subtle sensations that are associated primarily with the movement of tissues: fascia, muscles, bones, dura maters... In different cases, different tissues will have different movements.

Osteopaths have the same concept, and we also use it in our practice when we work with the body. If there is some kind of tissue tension in the body, the so-called dysfunction, then it will shift other tissues towards itself, pull them. Pain or a problem in some organ can often arise not in the place where this basic tension is, but in the place that stretches towards the tension, but we need to work in the place where the basic tension is localized, that is, the cause pain.

Sometimes this basic reason is localized outside the body, in the subtle body, but we talk about this only in the 4th module. The first 3 modules we study the physical body.

We can feel, perceive, perceive different states of bones. Few people know that soft tissues, organs and muscles depend on the condition of the bones to which they are attached. Bones can be harder and more elastic, if not soft, that is, they have different fullness, depending on whether there is stagnation of blood in small capillaries or not.

What else can you feel? You can feel different emotions in your body.

And if a person is immersed in different emotional states, his body will tense up in different ways: in different zones with different intensities. Sometimes a perceptologist (as my students nicknamed themselves) knows which zones are responsible for which emotions. Sometimes he simply reads, perceives, perceives the current emotional state of a person.

During the session, the client voices his complaint, lies down on the couch, and the specialist begins to interact with him, practically without asking questions. Simply by touching a person with his hands, the perceptologist begins to understand and perceive the client’s thoughts, his emotions, and in general everything that happens to him. This is what it means to feel.

And there are keys - how to start feeling this way.

Related articles:

• Bonuses after the seminar “Osteopathic techniques in facial aesthetics”
• Pancreas
• Time to communicate
• Completed Module 4. Working with energy, thoughts, emotions
• If you want to learn to love, learn to be alone

Differences between perception and apperception

Along with perception, the closely related concept of apperception is distinguished. The perceptual process is perception. Apperception also represents the reception and processing of visual, auditory and other information. Adding the prefix an- to the main concept is intended to show the complexity of perception. We don't just hear, see, taste, smell and touch - the results are experienced through an individual lens. It necessarily includes previous perceptual experience, on the basis of which a judgment is made about the subject. So we compare each image with the existing standards of shape - is it a circle or a triangle, colors - green or aqua, etc.

Specific knowledge and skills, the current state, mediate our study of the world around us and determine differences in the perception of different people. Personal characteristics have a great influence - inclinations, interests, character, lifestyle in general, which also influence the perception of ourselves.

Gestalt psychology of perception. Concept of field and perceptual forces. Laws of perceptual organization.

The principle of isomorphism

K.Koffka

PERCEPTION: AN INTRODUCTION TO GESTALTTEORNY *

In this part of my work, I will present a number of experiments from various fields that show the fruitfulness of our concept. Intervals ab, b", vg,

shown in Fig.
1, differ from the intervals aa, bb, ev,
although both belong to the same object - the “fence”.
Trying to describe this difference, we discover one very striking feature of perception. The white spaces ab, be,
bg form part of the general white field, while the remaining white spaces are limited to the areas enclosed between the corresponding black lines; they do not extend beyond these areas and do not form part of the surrounding white field. Experienced observers can even describe curves enclosing these white stripes, which appear to curve slightly inward. Thus we see that the white surface of our drawing, although objectively uniform everywhere, gives rise to two different phenomena: in one case it appears in the form of limited “stripes,” while in the other it extends to the rest of the field. To denote this difference we have two expressive words: we call the first phenomenon figure, the second - background, while understanding that a figure as such is generally impossible without a background.

A a b b e

Fig.1

Let's turn to our “fence”. We found that the white spaces belonging to the figure are closed, while the same spaces belonging to the background are not, although objectively there are no closing lines in either case. Here we are dealing with one very general principle: it is the background that is always less “shaped” than the figure. Rubin was the first to systematically examine these facts, and the following presentation is largely drawn from his work. His method was special

* Reader on sensation and perception / Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter, M.B. Mikhalevskoy. M.. Publishing house Moscow. Univ., 1975. P. 96-100.

Especially useful for identifying differences between figure and ground. He used ambiguous geometric objects, where one or another part of the image could act as a figure. A simple example of such an object has already been considered by Schumann. If the intervals are aa, bb

in our “fence” we make
ab, bc equal,
then we get something wonderful.
Now the stripe can become bb,
and
bv can become
part of the background;
and vice versa, bv
can appear as a stripe, and
bb
can become part of the background. Each time we will discover the same difference: the stripes are always closed, no matter what segments they are limited to, while the intervals between them are not. Another example is the so-called subjective rhythm, auditory or visual, when it is superimposed on an objectively homogeneous series of beats or flashes. And in this case we are faced with the difference between subjective inter- and intra-metric intervals, and again the connection of these subjective impressions with objective intervals turns out to be ambiguous. Rice. 2, reproduced from Rubin's work, can be perceived either as a white cross on a black background, or as a black cross on a white background (if other, less important effects are neglected). Compare any cross with its background and you will easily notice that the background is always less structured than the figure; the background either has no distinct shape at all, or approaches the relatively simple shape of a square.

Rice. 2

A greater degree of structure also corresponds to a greater “liveness” or brightness of the figure. Schumann already noticed that the white areas inside the figure are “whiter” than those outside, which is easy to see in the example of his “fence.”

These examples show the previously noted fact: phenomenally a figure always has closing lines, even if objectively they are absent. A good figure is always “closed”, and the closing line just performs the “closing” function. Thus the line dividing the regions of figure and ground has a very different relation to each of them, for, while limiting the figure, it does not

serves as a border for the background. The background does not change under the influence of the contour and, partially covered by the figure, seems to lie behind the figure, without being interrupted by it. The cross below (Figure 3) helps make this clear.

Look at the areas filled with arcs. Forming a cross, the curves actually become arcs, that is, independent segments of circles; having formed a circle, they are perceived differently, no longer as isolated from each other; they now appear in consciousness as visible parts of a whole series of concentric circles.

Rice. 3

The property of the background not to be influenced by the contour of the figure is closely related to another of its properties already mentioned, namely, its lesser degree of structure. In our last example this is expressed in the fact that whole circles, when they form a background, are a simpler structure than the sets of arcs that make up the figure - a cross, for in the second case four arcs appear instead of each circle. The lesser degree of structure determines another difference between figure and ground noted by Rubin: the background has a more pronounced “substantial” character, and the figure has a “material” character.

Let's return to the limiting line. From its different relationship to the figure and to the background it follows that it must have two different sides.

us: internal and external; one includes, the other excludes, or following Hornbostel we can say that one of them is concave, the other is convex, although these words are not psychological terms; I think, however, that they correctly grasp the actual psychological differences. Take a look at the left line "in" our "fence" and you will see what is meant; in fact, the left side of the straight line is hard and repulsive, while the right side is soft and yielding. A very complete description of these qualities was given by Hornbostel, who reduced the illusion of reversal of perspective to a change in these qualities: in order to invert a figure, it is necessary to make concave what is convex, and convex what is concave.

Here we need to make one remark for those readers who may have the objection that our terms do not denote the real properties of visual phenomena, but only their intentional meanings. I have already said that I wanted to describe the genuine properties. Let us take into account that they do not necessarily have to be similar to those “frozen” properties that appear in traditional psychology, which are endowed only with “being”; on the contrary, many of them are alive and active, having “action”. A timber beam lying useless on the floor may look exactly the same as a timber bearing a certain load, but an accurate description would note this fact by taking into account the state of tension that would then exist. More generally speaking, the state of rest in the absence of forces differs from the state of rest in the case of their equilibrium; According to the author, the same is true for the described phenomena. The closing line of a figure performs some function, and this function is one of its visual properties. Traditional psychology from the very beginning defined the term “visual properties” as indicating only “frozen” properties; as a result, she discovered only such properties. But this definition was arbitrary and, as it turned out, inadequate, since it blinded the researcher to extremely important facts.

Ch. Osgood

GESTALT THEORY POINT OF VIEW *

The attempt presented here to extract the essence of the Gestalt point of view is based mainly on the work of Koffka (1935), Köhler (1938, 1940), Brown and Voth (1937).

The theory deals with phenomena that are found in the visual field,

which, in turn, is a dynamic distribution of energy, and its parts are interdependent due to their participation in the whole. A field is structured to the extent that there are differences in intensity or quality within it. To the extent that a field is structured, it contains potential energy capable of producing (perceptual) work. The familiar analogy of the energy field around a magnet is, apparently, the simplest to facilitate understanding. In the space between the two poles of a magnet, there is a force field, and the intensity and direction of its forces continuously change from one point to another. The rearrangement of the iron filings that occurs when a magnetic field is introduced reveals not only that these energy differentials are capable of producing work, but also that the work they produce allows us to describe the nature of the field forces. Similarly, phenomenal aspects of perception (i.e., work produced) are used by Gestalt theorists to characterize visual field forces.

At this point, the question naturally arises: where (in the nervous system) is this visual field localized? Brown and Voth write: “Under the visual field

we mean
a spatial structure (construct)
into which the phenomena of the visual field can be ordered.”
Indeed, the field
can be introduced into the theory as a purely hypothetical construct.
This appears to be the safest procedure, but Gestalt theorists tend to introduce physiological processes to explain their psychological "field" phenomena. Kofka (1935) writes: “... let us think of physiological processes not as molecular, but as molar phenomena. If we do this, then all the difficulties of the old theory will disappear. For their molar properties will be the same as the properties of the processes of consciousness on which they lie.” And below: “...where local processes are not completely isolated

completely independent
, which perhaps connect each nerve cell with each other... (and therefore) events in this network of nervous tissue can no longer form only geometries

' Reader on sensation and perception / Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter, M.B. Mikhalevskoy. M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1975. pp. 114-127.

ric forms... the processes that take place in it can no longer be independent, and we must consider them as molar distributions with a degree of interdependence varying in inverse proportion to the actual operational resistance." And yet it doesn't tell us where

(i.e. in the 17th, 18th field or anywhere else in the brain tissue) these dynamic forces operate, and Gestalt theorists, in fact, never said anything about this.

On the question of how

Based on the known properties of the material nervous system, field processes can be explained, most clearly expressed by Koehler (1940), Koehler and Walach (1944). Köhler points out that perceptual processes behave similarly to currents in electrolytes, and then asks whether it is possible that perceptual phenomena are actually related to electrical currents in the nervous system. His physiological reasoning can be summarized as follows.

Based on the fact that neurohumoral chemicals are released at the ends of fibers (Cannon and Rosenbluth,

1937), it can be assumed that in the visual parts of the brain, “when nerve impulses reach the endings of sensory fibers, chemical substances penetrate into the environment that surrounds these endings.”
With a large number of fibers excited in a given area, with repeated waves of excitation and, apparently, the release of neuro-humoral substances, it can be assumed that a steady state of chemical concentration will be achieved. This concentration, representing a figure in its spatial distribution, will differ from the concentration representing the background. Since these regions of different concentrations of chemicals have common and continuous boundaries, ions will diffuse from regions of increased concentration to regions of decreased concentration, thereby generating an electromotive force that will cause a current to flow around the contour of the figure. This current movement will be independent of the anatomical pathways as such. “Since the current is caused by the presence of a figure, we can say that its movement forms a functional halo (rim) or field
of the figure.”

Köhler believes that a large number of psychological facts require a theory such as this.

Both Koffka's opinion about molar physiological processes parallel to mental processes and Köhler's call for the discovery of field brain functions are based on the principle of isoformism.

Literally it means “equality of forms.”
Boring (1942) gives the following illustration on this subject: “If this system of points is applied to a flat rubber film, and then the film is stretched on an irregular plane, then the points on the stretched film will be isomorphic to the points on the flat film.” Note that there is no requirement that the distances be identical in magnitude, only that the points be consistent in their order.
The spatial and temporal ordering of the answer will correspond to the spatial and temporal ordering of physiological processes, the content presented in the answer as “one

thing,” will correspond to a unit or whole in the underlying physiological process. In solving the problem of “soul and body” this is a variant of psychological parallelism, parallelism between molar mental and molar physiological phenomena. The projection of the sensory surface onto the cortex makes this point of view possible. Indeed, the vision of a white square is accompanied (roughly speaking) by a square-like area of ​​excitation in the 17th field. However, the isomorphism of Geschtalt theory goes further than this. She argues that consciously perceived

the square must correspond to a square-shaped region of excitation somewhere in the visual cortex, i.e., if the four-dot shape is perceived as a “square,” some square-like physiological process must be taking place. If this principle is correct, then the experience of consciousness can be used directly as a means of studying molar physiological functions. This is what Gestalt psychologists believed. The foregoing constitutes the essence of phenomenology. These theorists accepted isomorphism as a fundamentally “given”, as an axiom. They did not recognize localized specific pathways and associations, since such physiological phenomena, based on the principle of isomorphism, do not have a corresponding representation in consciousness.

What are the forces acting in the visual field? There is one basic dynamic factor, one source of energy for perceptual work: similar processes in the visual field attract each other (Bruner,

1930).
This mutual attraction of similar processes forms the basis of the binding forces
in the visual field. They are central in origin, integrating (organizing) in function and perceptual in nature.

“We assume that there are binding field forces between all objects in the visual field,

having the nature of vectors... The visual field must be thought of as a four-dimensional
set,
which, along with three spatial ones, has a fourth, temporal, dimension.”
The closer two points are in space and time, the more pronounced this tendency to connect them is. Köhler (1940) offers a large number of illustrations of this pattern in the visual field and in other modalities: the tendency of two points on the skin to appear closer together than they really are when touched almost simultaneously; the same phenomenon in hearing, the merging of slightly disparate points in depth perception. Obviously, if there were no restrictions on these binding tendencies, all the objects in the field would simply merge to form a regular spherical ball. Consequently, we must postulate opposing, restraining forces
that are peripheral in origin, segregative in function, and “sensory” in nature. Koffka writes: “We have two kinds of forces: those that exist within the processes of distribution themselves and which tend to give this distribution the simplest possible form, and those that take place between this distribution and the form of the stimulus, which restrain this tendency to simplification."

As suggested above, the intensity of binding forces varies in accordance with quasi-quantitative laws.

1. The greater the qualitative similarity between processes in the visual field, the stronger the binding forces between them.

If some letters on a page of regular type are red, the overall shape they form (such as
x)
is readily perceived—similar processes evoked by red are associated. The same black letters do not form a shape because they associate equally with all the other black characters on the page.

2. The greater the similarity of processes in intensity, the greater the forces connecting them.

The purest demonstration of this is
the Liebman effect.
If the brightness of a colored figure is the same as the brightness of the neutral gray background against which it is perceived, the shape of the colored figure becomes unclear. Strong binding forces between processes of the same intensity take place between figure and ground, they weaken the separating effect of qualitative difference and, as a result, blur the contours. The effect is most noticeable in the case of blue figures (on a gray background).

3. The smaller the distance between similar processes, the greater the forces connecting them.

4. The shorter the time interval between similar processes, the stronger the forces connecting them.

Both of these laws are well illustrated by the phi phenomenon. Two light flashes that turn on alternately can, under certain conditions, be perceived as one spot of light moving back and forth. If the timing is optimal, increasing the spatial distance between flashes reduces the impression of motion. Animators know that in order to reduce jerks in the movement of figures, the difference between successive drawings, i.e. distance must be reduced. Finally, in general, the shorter the time interval between successive flashes, the better the apparent motion.

We can now turn to the perceptual work done by these binding and restraining forces. Koffka writes: “...we might expect very stable organizations whenever both kinds of forces act in the same direction, for example if our spot is circular. Conversely, if the forces are in strong conflict, then the resulting organization should be less stable.”

We can generalize this as follows: the stronger the contradiction between the binding and restraining forces, the more energy there is in the visual field that can produce perceptual work.

This perceptual work can take many forms: closure of incomplete figures, distortions (illusions), grouping of visual objects, apparent movement, etc. If, following the analysis of Brown and Voth, we represent the sum of all cohesive forces acting on a given point as
SC,
then we can write the following relations:

(1) XC - ZR (2) 1C > ZR (3) XC < 1R

If the first condition holds - there is no energy to perform perceptual work, there is a constant stable state. In the second case, in which binding forces predominate over restraining forces, modifications (perceptual performance) can be predicted. The third case, with a predominance of restraining forces over binding ones, also represents instability in the visual field, but exactly what phenomenal changes will take place is unclear. Brown and Voth suggest that this is the condition for autokinetic motion.

Essentially, the theory says little about restraining forces. The binding forces acting on a given point represent the mutual attraction of all similar processes in the visual field (the strength of the vectors is proportional to their similarity, proximity, etc.). But what are the restraining forces? Their only function seems to be to maintain the apparent localization of a point exactly corresponding to the place of maximum excitation in the distribution that connects the stimulus. Therefore, while binding forces displace objects in the visual field from their "real position", restraining forces arise, increasing until ZC becomes equal to X/?. If this reasoning is correct, then equation (3) above is never realized: restraining forces arise only when displacements caused by binding forces occur in the visual field, and they never become stronger than the binding forces that cause them. life. This idea appeared in an article by Orbison (1939) reporting research conducted under Brown's direction. “If two objects are perceived as a stable configuration, then, by definition, IR is

HS.
However, this does not mean that these objects are not attracted to each other. On the contrary, this means that both objects are attracted to each other until 1.R = bC.
This interpretation suggests that the restraining forces of the field increase as the object moves from its position."

It follows that all visual fields tend to minimize tension,

i.e. to the condition under which EC = £Л. Essentially, what is presented in experience as a stable perception is always the final result of the interaction of these forces, and the antecedent existence and direction of the binding forces is revealed in the fact that what is perceived is not identical with what would be predicted on the basis of retinal stimulation. What are the directions in which these changes will occur (i.e., what are the directions of the binding forces)? We have already seen that, if not restrained, all processes in the visual field would merge into a completely balanced sphere, extended in the fourth (time) dimension. The actual binding will be as great as the existing (retinal) conditions allow. Koffka draws an analogy with a soap bubble: “Why is it shaped like a sphere?” Of the volumetric forms, the sphere represents the smallest surface for a given volume or the largest volume for

of this surface. <…> Soap particles are attracted to each other, they tend to form the smallest possible space between them, but the air pressure from the inside forces them to remain on the surface, forming the surface membrane of this air body. <…> A finite, time-independent distribution contains a minimum of energy capable of producing work. The final, time-independent state is always a function of the existing conditions (here a given form of retinal excitation): although raindrops in a medium of equal density have a spherical shape, they take on a flattened shape on a solid surface. Koffka concludes that binding forces tend to have regular, symmetrical and simple forms. Hence the law of pregnancy,

according to which “the mental organization will always be as “good” as conditions allow.”

Rice. 1

By far the most convincing support for the general Gestalt theory of perception came from Brown and Voth's (1937) own studies of apparent motion. Using a special apparatus, they could ignite light sources A, B, C,

D (Fig. 1) in a circle at a pace that could be controlled by the experimenter.
If the time interval between flashes was large, the apparent movement of one point was not perceived: the time intervals between A - B, B - C
, etc. were such that the binding forces were minimal, and four
separate
flashes were perceived as alternately lighting up and going out.
As the time interval decreased, the effect of pure phi motion arose: one spot of light seemed to describe the corners of a square. In this case, B
was much closer in time to
A
and influenced it in a connecting way, just like
B
in relation to
B
, etc., but
B
was significantly removed from
A
in order to have any influence on it .
As the time intervals were further reduced, however, the trajectory of the apparent motion first became an arcuate curve around the sides of the square, and then began to be perceived as a circle, the perimeter of which was inside the actual locations of the light bulbs. Stimulations B, C, D
follow quite closely in

Rice. 2. A

— distortion of a circle superimposed on a field with radial lines;
B -
distortion of a square superimposed on a field with concentric circles.

time after stimulation A,

due to which they have a binding effect on point
A.
However, the magnitude of the binding forces in this field gradually decreases.
Since the relative magnitude of the vectors will change gradually and continuously with each change in the apparent position of A,
the apparent motion of one source will appear approximately as the arc of a circle entirely within the stimulation points. The same analysis is applied to each of the four points. Accurate measurements fully confirmed these predictions of the theory, as well as others that could be realized by changing the distance between the sources, the intensity of the sources, etc.

With further reduction of time intervals, the size of the circle - the trajectory of movement - becomes larger until the weight of 4 sources are visible simultaneously (when they are separated by only 50 ms);

Brown and Voth suggest that the intensity of binding forces as a function of time interval first increases and then decreases.
No explanation is offered for this functional dependence. Another possibility is that restraining forces reflecting neural events on the retina have a faster and more negatively accelerated decay function when stimuli disappear compared with binding forces. At very short intervals the predominance of C
forces will be small;
at slightly larger intervals at a given rate of decay of retinal excitation and, consequently, the predominance of B
forces would become maximum; with a further increase in the interval, the weakening of the connecting tendencies themselves would lead to reducing effects.

Another striking demonstration of the applicability of the described theory is offered by Orbison (1939). His technique consisted of introducing objectively symmetrical figures into fields structured in such a way that they were dominated by certain tensions of binding forces. The main hypothesis would be confirmed if these objectively symmetrical figures were distorted within such fields in the directions of positions of “binding equilibrium” (i.e., positions that would be occupied if restraining forces were absent).

Considering binding forces only as a function of the space between similar processes, Orbison theoretically determined these binding equilibrium positions for each of the fields used (details can be found in the original paper). Field circle A

and the square on field
B
are clearly distorted so much that it is even difficult to believe that they are objectively correct (Fig. 2)

The last postulate of the theory of perception of Gestaltpeichology could be

formulated as follows:
the existing organization of a field tends to resist change.
We say “could” because although there is much perceptual evidence to support this position, and the same idea exists in Gestalt psychology regarding insight and problem solving, there is a wealth of other evidence to support the exact opposite thesis, namely, that the
existing organization of the field tends to block its own constancy.

Let us turn to examples that confirm the first thesis: the difficulty of perceiving a face hidden among the foliage in a mysterious picture is usually explained by the dominance of the previous perceptual organization. Some individuals have difficulty perceiving both

from two possible images in effective figures.
If, in an installation similar to that used by Brown and Voth (Fig. 3), bulbs A-D

B-C
also flashing simultaneously the apparent movement will give the impression either vertical (if the distances AB

CD

are

yaniya AC

and
BD),
or a horizontally oscillating line (if the distances
AB
and CO are greater than
AC
and
BD).
Now suppose we start from position (2) (Fig. 3), where a vertical oscillating line is always perceived, and gradually increase the distance between
A and B.
When a position is reached in which
B
is equidistant from
A
and
D
(3) , no shift in the direction of apparent motion occurs.
In fact, the perception of a vertical oscillating line continues up to a position where the distance AB
is much greater than the distance
AC
(4), directly contradicting the law of proximity with respect to binding forces. Finally, a point is reached (5) at which the tension is too great and the figure suddenly turns into a horizontal oscillating line.

The existing field organization clearly resists change, tending to

maintaining consistency. Psychologists of another generation would have been inclined to regard this as an illustration of an "attitude."

What is the evidence for the opposite thesis, that the existing organization of a field creates forces that tend to destroy it? Koehler, using an object with a revolving figure and background, found that the frequency of reversal increases with observation time. If, after long-term observation, the image was reversed so that the contours fell on relatively “fresh” areas, on the contrary, an increase in stability was observed. From this fact he concluded that the continued action of the process that forms a figure in a given area of ​​visual tissue weakens the organizing forces that support this structure. Another cited example is the figure aftereffect. After prolonged viewing of one figure, a shift is observed in the other (testing) figure in the direction from the area that received the greatest saturation.

The fact that organizational processes are accompanied by both tendencies - to strengthen and weaken its stability - seems obvious, but how these trends relate remains unclear.

How is the phenomenal world organized in perception? When we look around, we see not the chaos of sensations that James wrote about, but an environment clearly divided into meaningful objects. This is a pencil (yellow) lying on a book (green), and not just a yellow oblong spot on a green field; it is the face of Samuel Jones, not a chaotic jumble of red, white and brown sensations. It may very well be (as empiricists think) that before perceptual learning

inner experience is chaotic in character, but certainly by the time young individuals have developed their motor abilities sufficiently to permit experimentation on them, sensory chaos has been subordinated to perceptual order. What is the nature of this perceptual order? What types of organization take place? Under what stimuli and central conditions? And “why” in terms of physiological, Gestalt and behaviorist theories, perceptual organization has its own specific features0

Phenomenal laws of organization

Look closely for some time at the figure of small black squares (Fig. 1, A); you will notice constant changes in its organization - sometimes horizontal, sometimes vertical lines, sometimes groups of four squares, sometimes a central cross. What we have here is an ambiguous situation in which various peripheral (stimulus) and various central (attitude, meaning, etc.) factors compete to determine what will be perceived. This “chessboard” was first described by Schumann (1900), who attributed fluctuations in perceptual organization to the vagaries of attention (Fig. 1, B). We have introduced a dominant

■ ■■■■■■ ■■■?>■■■

■■■■■■■ ■■■Aries

■■■■■■■ ■■■ovvn

■■■■■■■ ooooooo

■■■■■■■ IIBO1I1

………………………………. ■■■?)■■■

■■■■■■■ IIBOIII

A B

Rice. 1. A -

arrangement of figures that allows one to observe a changing organization (according to
Shu-mann,
1900);
B -
an arrangement in which one dominant organization resists change

* Reader on sensation and perception / Ed. Yu.B. Gippenreiter, M.B. Mikhalevskoy. M.: Publishing house Mosk. Univ., 1975. pp. 281-295.

Rice. 2. A

— the proximity factor predisposes the observer to organize the lines into groups;
B
factor works against proximity, promoting the grouping of less close lines;
B
- closedness excludes the possibility of grouping close parts of separate figures

1. Proximity

The closer (other things being equal) objects are to each other in the visual field, the more likely they are organized into single, holistic images. For this reason, pairs of lines (Fig. 2, A) are easily organized so that two adjacent ones are perceived as a whole, while it is almost impossible to perceive as a whole lines separated by a large gap, i.e., to destroy units based on the factor of spatial proximity. By the way, what is happening here is not just spatial proximity, but proximity of processes of the same quality.

2. Similarities

The similarity of processes in the visual field: the more unified and holistic images, the more

⇐ Previous8Next ⇒

Mechanical retention of earth masses: Mechanical retention of earth masses on a slope is provided by buttress structures of various designs...

General conditions for choosing a drainage system: The drainage system is selected depending on the nature of the protected…

Organization of surface water flow: The largest amount of moisture on the globe evaporates from the surface of the seas and oceans (88‰)…

Papillary patterns of the fingers are a marker of athletic ability: dermatoglyphic signs are formed at 3-5 months of pregnancy and do not change throughout life...


Perceptual communication

What does it consist of? As we found out, perceptive is a synonym for the word perceiver. You can perceive not only inanimate things, animals, the relationship is also formed in terms of “person-to-person”. This means that even in communication there is a perceptual side. That is, it is the perception and evaluation of other people. Perceptual communication also presupposes the ability to feel the interlocutor and mood, to understand his needs and desires, motives of behavior.

There are a number of factors on which interpersonal interaction can depend. Firstly, this is the fact of the superiority of another in certain parameters, due to which he will be perceived as an authoritative person and, accordingly, have a positive image. Secondly, the external attractiveness of the partner. Beautiful people are more liked. Thirdly, the attitude towards the observer. If your partner treats you well, then most likely it will cause the same feelings in return. Each of these points can reduce the adequacy of social perception and significantly affect the impression of someone.