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

Gibsons and Gregorys theories of perceptual experience two suggest that eye-retina is important for acquaintance. The both believe that with bring out eye-retina, a somebody will not be adapted to stop. This is a common run across of both of the theories of acquaintance. The idea is supported by the case of SB. SB was a man who had been blind from birth due to cataracts. When he was 52, he had an process which restored his sight and hence he could see. Thus, this case has shown the importance of eye-retina for things to be perceived.And thitherfore, supports both of theories of recognition which eye-retina is essential for perception. Gibson believes in the direct theories of perception which he hold the hypothesis of bottom-up processing to explain opthalmic illusions whereas Gregory believes in the verifying theories of perception and he used the speculation of top-down processing to explain visual illusions. The bottom-up are based on the assumption that we draw upw ards in our analysis of the visual world form prefatory sensorial inputs at the bottom level towards the higher, to a greater extent cognitive levels of the brain.The top-down processing theories are based on the assumption that we can lone(prenominal) perceive our visual world accurately if we use stored familiarity and problem-solving skills. Thus, there are differences between their theories of perception. Gregorys indirect conjecture of perception and Gibsons direction theory of perception had led to the debate of nature-nurture. This is a adult debate in Psychology whether perception is headstrong by genetics as proposed by Gibsons theory or whether it is learnt or determined by education and social context as proposed by Gregorys theory.On the one hand, Nativists think that nature is more important featureor which tribe are the products of their genetics and that we are born with certain behaviours. On the another(prenominal) hand, empiricists think that experience and nurture is the more important factor. They think that situational factors and upbringing have a greater influence on outcome. An eclectic tone-beginning might show that it is an interaction between nature and nurture and that incomplete side can tell the full story. It may be that a genetic predisposition to perception exists, but that situational factors also have to be in place for it to develop.Apart from the above, there are a few more differences between Gibsons and Gregorys theories of perception. Gregory believes that additional processing is required for perception which some forms of background knowledge is pauperisationed to create sense of the surround than just the sensory input while Gibson believes that perception is part of an inbuilt adaptive mechanism for survival which does not rely on stored knowledge or past experience. Gregory believes that expectations have an impact on perceptions which Gibson disagrees.There is empirical evidence supporting the ide a of Gregory, and this comes from a interpret carried out by Simons and Levin. 50% of the participants failed to veridicalise 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 theatre carried out by Selfridge also 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 cut what they have been expecting to see. Thus, the study demonstrates that expectations affect perception. And hence suggest that Gregorys theory of perception might be expert instead of Gibsons. Gregory also suggests that we use context for our perceptions which Gibson disagrees. There are supporting evidences for Gregorys assumptions. Selfridges stu dy has shown context effects on visual perception. This study suggests that context assist perception.Similarly, Boring has demonstrated the use of top-down processing as salubrious as the fact that context influences visual perception. These two 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 hear the word in the prison term entirely. This shows the importance of context which helps to fill in the missing 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 make errors in perception. For instance, we do not necessarily see spelling errors in our written work as we word- through and 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 said that, when looking at the Muller-Lyer figure, the derivation on the left looks longer than that on the right. He believed that this was because we were using top-down processing and assuming that the figure on the left is like the respite of a room that we are in, while the figure on the right is like the corner of a building seen from the outside. Hence, this suggested that we use context for our perceptions. He also pointed to the idea of the hollow drape. When we see a hollow mask from the inside, we perceive it as pointing outwards, because this is what we are used to.However, there are problems with Gregorys outlook. Firstly, if we take a derivation of the Muller-Lyer illusio n 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 rooms 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 fake stimulus that could not happen in the real world which suggested that the theory cannot be applied in real animation 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 inheritance instead of what Gregory has suggested. According to Warren and Hannon, participants were able to make judgements closely direction using dots which support Gibsons visual flow patterns.And this demon strates 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 so has cast doubt upon Gibsons theory. Also, a study carried Hahn, Anderson and Saidpour has demonstrated that unheeding 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.