context in which you experience them. You also tend to see a reference frame as
stationary and the parts within it as moving, regardless of the actual sensory
stimulus. In converting the two-dimensional information on the retina to a
perception of three-dimensional space, the visual system gauges object size and
distance: distance is interpreted on the basis of known size, and size is inter-
preted on the basis of various distance cues. You tend to perceive objects as
having stable size, shape, and orientation. Prior knowledge normally reinforces
these and other constancies in perception; under extreme conditions, perceptual
constancy may break down.
Identification and Recognition Processes
During the final stage of perceptual processing—identification and recognition
of objects—percepts are given meaning through processes that combine bottom-
up and top-down influences. Context, expectations, and perceptual sets may
guide recognition of incomplete or ambiguous data in one direction rather than
another, equally possible one. Perception thus depends on what you know and
expect as well as on the sensory stimulus.
References
Beck, J. (1972). Similarity groupings and peripheral discriminality under uncertainty.American
Journal of Psychology, 85, 1–20.
Beck, J. (Ed.) (1982).Organization and representation in perception.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biederman, I. (1985). Recognition by components: A theory of object recognition.Computer Vision
Graphics and Image Processing, 32, 29–73.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition by components.Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
Biederman, I. (1989). Higher-level vision. In D. N. Osherson, H. Sasnik, S. Kosslyn, K. Hollerbach,
E. Smith, & N. Block (Eds.),An invitation to cognitive science.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Biederman, I., & Cooper, E. E. (1991). Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate
representations in visual object recognition.Cognitive Psychology, 23, 393–419.
Bregman, A. S. (1982). Asking the ‘‘what for’’ question in auditory perception. In M. Kobovy &
J. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization(pp. 99–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979.
Cohen, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1973). Visual spatial illustrations: Many explanations.Science, 179,503–
504.
Cutting, J., & Proffitt, D. (1982). The minimum principle and the perception of absolute, common,
and relative motions.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 211–246.
Driver, J., & Tipper, S. (1989). On the nonselectivity of ‘‘selective’’ seeing: Contrasts between inter-
ference and priming in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Percep-
tion and Performance, 15, 304–314.
Gibson,J.J.(1966).The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson,J.J.(1979).An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hillstrom, A. P., & Yantis, S. (1994). Visual motor and attentional capture.Perception & Psychophy-
sics, 55, 399–411.
Irwin, D. E. (1991). Information integration across saccadic eye movements.Cognitive Psychology, 23,
420–456.
Julesz, B. (1981a). Figure and ground perception in briefly presented isodipole textures. In M.
Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization(pp. 27–54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Julesz, B. (1981b). Textons, the elements of texture perception and their interaction.Nature, 290,91–
97.
Kanizsa, G. (1979).Organization in vision.NewYork:Praeger.
Leff, H. (1984).Playful perception: Choosing how to experience your world. Burlington, VT: Waterfront
Books.
186 Philip G. Zimbardo and Richard J. Gerrig