Keisha Harris
1 posts
Re:Module 1 DQ 2
Attention seems to be at the front end of perception, but consideration of causality makes attention’s position in the perceptual process less obvious. Formulate what you think is the best provisional model of causality in formation of a single visual perception in a baseball game that is strongly influenced by motivation and focus of attention. Justify the structure you propose.
Many basic perceptual functions in vision involve casual inference. Grouping and segmentation is a common example. “Given the ubiquity of occlusion and other kinds of noise in visual scenes and retinal images, visual information is always fragmented and noisy, and the visual system has to determine which parts of the retinal image correspond to the same object and group together and which parts correspond to different objects and should not be grouped together” (Huang, 2006, p. 426).
Our text stated that people look longer at things that seem out of place in a scene, meaning that an individual’s attention is affected by their knowledge of what is usually found in the scene (Goldstein, 2006). With that being said, the way a person visually perceives a baseball game would be influenced by their knowledge and interests, which in turn will be directly correlated to their focus of attention (Goldstein, 2006). In the example of a baseball game, a person who has never attended a baseball game would probably scan the entire the park, including the crowd, dug outs, the field, mascots etc., without initially focusing their attention on something specific. But let’s take a person who is very familiar with baseball, their focus is generally more narrow and specific. For example, one of my favorite players is Joey Votto for the Cincinnati Reds, in addition, I played softball (catcher and short stop from the age of nine through college), my motivation and focus of attention is probably entirely different from the first-timer due to my prior knowledge, love of the game, interests, and expectations to name a few (Goldstein, 2006).
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 612-625. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612
Goldstein, E. B., (2011). Cognitive psychology: connecting mind, research, and everyday experience, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Terrence Sawyer
1 posts
Re:Module 1 DQ 2
Perception is motivated by determinants and factors coming in from auditory and visual observances. Noting this is combining both top-down and bottom up processing a person playing in a baseball game will have a different perspective on observance methods then a game observer. An observer of the game will have more cognitive resources open to gain information about several things in the environment of the game (Goldstein, 2011). The player perception will be guided by a model of divided attention and covert attention based on selective focus (Goldstein, 2011). With experience of everyday aspects of the game the focus of the player will be more endogenous attention and automatic processing will be the provisional model of causality from practice keeping a consistent mapping condition (Van der Stigchel and Theeuwes, 2007). The combined mapping condition aids in bottom-up processes such as stimulus salience and top-down processes influencing task demands and enhancing cognitive functions with continuous changing scenery (Goldstein, 2011). Continuous eye movement increase attention and focus resources (Van der Stigchel and Theeuwes, 2007).
Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Van der Stigchel, S., & Theeuwes, J. (2007). The relationship between covert and overt attention in endogenous cuing. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(5), 719–731. do
