Однако, по общему признанию, фак-
тов, свидетельствующих в пользу такого понимания, пока еще
недостаточно.
("li.l.IKH
1. Gillam В. J. Perception of slant when perspective and stereopsis conflict:
experiments with aniseikonic lenses. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1968, 78, 299-305; Epstein W., Morgan-Paap C. L. The effect of level of depth
processing and degree of informational discrepancy on adaptation to uniocu-
lar image magnification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974 102
585-594.
2. Gibson J. J. The Perception of the Visual World. Houghton Mifflin Compa-
ny, 1950.
3. Gibson J. J. The perception of visual surfaces. American Journal of Psy-
chology, 1950, 63, 367-384; Gruber H. E., dark W. Perception of slanted sur-
faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1956, 16, 97-106; Clark W. С.,
Smith A. H., Rabe A. The interaction of surface texture, outline gradient, and
ground in the perception of slant. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1956,
10,1-8.
4. lttelson W. H. Size as a cue to distance. American Journal of Psychology,
1951,64,54-67.
5. Epstein W. The known-size apparent-distance hypothsis. American Jour-
nal of Psychology, 1961,74,333-346.
6. Schriever W. Experimentelle Studien liber stereoskopische Sehen. Zeit-
schrift furPsychologie, 1925, 96, 113-170.
7. Ratoosh P. On interposition as a cue for the perception of distance. Procee-
dings of the National Academy of Science, 1949, 35, 257-259.
Chapanis A., McCleary R. A. Interposition as a cue for the perception of
relative distance. The Journal of General Psychology, 1953, 48, 113-132.
Wheatstone С. Contributions to the physiology of vision: on some remar-
kable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision: Part 1. Phi-
losophical Transactions, 1838, 371-394; Contributions to the physiology of
vision: Part 2. Philosophical Transactions, 1852, 1-17.
Wheatstone. Op. cit., 1852, 13-14.
Julesz В. Foundations of Cyclopean Perception. University of Chicago Press,
1971.
Wallach H., Zuckerman C. The constancy of stereoscopic depth, American
Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 403-412; Gogel W. C. Perception of depth
from binocular disparity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 67,
379-386; Scalar perception with binocular cues of distance. American Jour-
nal of Psychology, 1972, 85, 477-498.
pulfrich C. Die Stereoskopie in Dienste der isochromen und heterochromen
Photometric. Naturwissenschaften, 1922, 10, 533-564; 569-601; 714-722;
735-743; 751-761; Lit A. The magnitude of the Pulfrich stereo-phenomenon
as a function of binocular differences of intensity at various levels of illumi-
nation. American Journal of Psychology, 1949, 62, 159-181.
Hering E. Beitrage zur Physiologic. Heft 1. W. Engelman, 1861.
Boring E. The Physical Dimensions of Consciousness. Dover Publications,
Inc., 1963 (впервые опубликовано в 1933); Kaufman L. Sight and Mind: An
Introduction to Visual Perception. Chap. 8. Oxford University Press, 1974.
Kaufman. Op. cit., 1974. Эта глава из работы Кауфмана содержит гораздо
более обширное описание проблемы бинокулярного взаимодействия, чем
приведенное здесь.
Werner H. Dynamics in binocular depth perception. Psychological Mono-
graphs, 1937 (whole no. 218).
Wallach H., Lindauer J. On the definition of retinal disparity Psychologische
Beitrage, 1962,6,521-530.
Barlow H. В. Bllakemore C., Pettigrew J. D. The neural mechanism of
binocular depth discrimination. Journal of Physiology, 1967, 193, 327-342;
Pettigrew J. D. The neurophysiology of binocular vision. Scientific Ameri-
can, 1972,227,84-95,
Gibson J. J., Corel W. Does motion perspective independently produce the
impression of a receding surface? Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1952,44,16-18.
Gibson E. J., Gibson J. J., Smith 0. W. Motion parallax as a determinant of
perceiving depth. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 40-51. For
a review of research on this subject; Epstein W" Park J. Examination of
Gibsons psychophysical hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 180-
196.
Wallach H., OConnell D. N. The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology, 1953,45,205-217.
Musotti C. L. Sui fenomeni stereocinetici. Archivio Italiano Psicologia, 1924,
3, 105-120. Музатти связывает открытие этого эффекта с именем Бе-
нусси; Wallach H., Weisz A., Adams P. A. Circles and derived figures in ro-
tation. American Journal of Psychology, 1956, 69, 48-59.
Green В. F. Jr. Figure coherence in the kinetic depth effect. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, 1961,62,272-282.
Leibowitz H., Moore D. Role of changes in accommodation and convergence
in the perception of size. Journal of Optical Society of America, 1966, 56,
1120-1123; Wallach H., Floor L. The use of size matching to demonstrate the
effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance. Per-
ception and Psychophysics, 1971, 10, 423-428.
Heinemann E. G" Tulving E., Nachmias J. The effect of oculomotor adjust-
ments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 1959, 72, 32-45.
Lashley К. S., Russell J. T. The mechanisms of vision XI. A preliminary
test of innate organization. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1934, 45, 136-
144
j. о
ВОСПРИЯТИЕ ТРЕТЬЕГО ИЗМЕРЕНИЯ
28. Hess Е. Н. Space perception in the chick. Scientific American, 1956, 195, 71-
80.
29. Фанц P. Восприятие формы. - В сб.: Восприятие. Механизмы и модели.
М.: Мир, 1974, с. 338-350.
30. Gibson Е. J., Walk R. D. The "visual cliff". Scientific American, 1960, 202
64-71.
31. Kurke М. 1. The role of motor experience in the visual discrimination of
depth in the chick. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955, 86, 191-196.
32. Gibson Е. J. Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. AppletoA-
Century-Crofts, 1969.
33. Campos J. J., Langer A., Krowitz A. Cardiac responses on the visual cliff in
prelocomotor human infants. Science, 1970, 170, 196-197.
34. Бауэр Т. Зрительный мир грудного младенца. - В сб.: Восприятие. Ме-
ханизмы и модели. М.: Мир, 1974, с. 351-360.
35. Palen G. F. Focusing cues in the visual cliff behavior of day-old chicks. Jour-
nal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1965, 59, 452-454.
36. Walk R. D., Gibson Е. J. A comparative and analytical study of visual depth
perception. Psychological Monographs, 1961, 75. (Whole no. 519),
37. Boll W" Tronick Е. Infant responses to impending collision: optical and real.
Science, 1971,171,818-820.
38. Schiff W., Caviness J. A., Gibson J. J. Persistent fear responses in rhesus
monkeys in response to the optical stimulus of "looming". Science, 1962,
136, 982-983. See also a prior study with chicks; Fishman R., Tallarico R. B.
Studies of visual depth perception: II. Avoidance as an indicator response in
chicks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 12, 251-257.
39. Bower Т. G. R., Broughton J. М., Moore М. K. The coordination of visual
and tactual input in infants. Perception Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 51-53.
40. Wallach Н., OConnell D. N., Neisser U. The memory effect of visual per-
ception of three-dimensional form. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1953,45,360-368.
41. Lopfermann Н. Psychologische Untersuchungen liber die Wirkung Zweidi-
mensionaler korperlicher Gebilde. Psychologische Forschung, 1930, 13,
293-364.
42. Hochberg J., Brooks V. The psychophysics of form: reversible-perspective
drawings of spatial objects. American Journal of Psychology, 1960, 73, 337-
354; Attneave F. Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psycholo-
gical Review, 1954,61,183-193.
43. lttleson W. Н., Kilpatrick F. P. Experiments in perception. Scientific Ameri-
can, 1951,185,50-55.
44. Gogel W. The tendency to see objects as equidistant and its inverse relation
to lateral separation. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, 1-17.
45. Ames A. Jr. Visual perception and the rotating trapezoidal window. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 1951,65.
46. Wolloch Н. Memory effects in perception. Доклад прочитан на Между-
народном Конгрессе по психологии, Монреаль, 1954.
47. Dinnerstein D., Wertheimer М. Some determinants of phenomenal overlap-
ping. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 21-37.
48. Ibid.
49. Hess Е. Н. Development of the chicks responses to light and shade cues to
depth. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1950, 43,
112-122.
50. Hershberger W. Attached shadow orientation perceived as depth by chickens
reared in an environment illuminated from below. Journal of Comparative
and Psysiological Psychology, 1970, 73, 407-411.
51. Wallach Н., Karsh Е. В. Why is the modification of stereoscopic depth-per-
ception so rapid? American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 413-420.
! .177
f2. Wallach Н., Karsh Е. В. The modification of stereoscopic depth-perception
I and kinetic depth effect. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 429-435.
l3. Mack A., Chitayat D. Eye-dependent and disparity adaptation to opposite
I visual-field rotations. American Journal of Psychology, 1970, 83, 352-371.
4. Epstein W., Morgan С. L. Adaptation to binocular image magnification: mo-
dification of the disparity-depth relationship. American Journal of Psycholo-
gy, 1970,83,322-329.
15. Epstein andMorgan-Paap, (1)
156. Weinstein S. The perception of depth in the absence of texture-gradient.
American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70,611-615.
[7. Epstein W. Perceived depth as a function of relative height under three
background conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1966 72
335-338.
8. Gruber Н. Е" King W. L" Ling S. Moon illusion: an event in imaginary space.
Science, 1963,139,750-752.
I
179
Глава
Мы воспринимаем объекты в определенных положениях по
отношению друг к другу и к нам самим. Мы также восприни-
маем объекты как имеющие определенную ориентацию, напри-
мер линия видится нами как вертикальная или наклонная.
Здесь читатель может удивиться, почему психологи рассматри-
вают восприятие направления или ориентации в качестве про-
блемы, достойной изучения. Можно подумать, что объект или,
точнее, отдельная точка объекта могла бы восприниматься рас-
положенной <прямо перед головой>, если бы ее изображение
попадало в центр сетчатки на фовеа; и что если бы изобра-
жение попадало на периферические участки сетчатки, то оно
воспринималось бы как объект, расположенный сбоку. Или
можно подумать, что линия воспринималась бы вертикальной,
когда вертикально ее изображение на сетчатке, и наклонной,
когда наклонно ее ретинальное изображение.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102
тов, свидетельствующих в пользу такого понимания, пока еще
недостаточно.
("li.l.IKH
1. Gillam В. J. Perception of slant when perspective and stereopsis conflict:
experiments with aniseikonic lenses. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1968, 78, 299-305; Epstein W., Morgan-Paap C. L. The effect of level of depth
processing and degree of informational discrepancy on adaptation to uniocu-
lar image magnification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974 102
585-594.
2. Gibson J. J. The Perception of the Visual World. Houghton Mifflin Compa-
ny, 1950.
3. Gibson J. J. The perception of visual surfaces. American Journal of Psy-
chology, 1950, 63, 367-384; Gruber H. E., dark W. Perception of slanted sur-
faces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1956, 16, 97-106; Clark W. С.,
Smith A. H., Rabe A. The interaction of surface texture, outline gradient, and
ground in the perception of slant. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1956,
10,1-8.
4. lttelson W. H. Size as a cue to distance. American Journal of Psychology,
1951,64,54-67.
5. Epstein W. The known-size apparent-distance hypothsis. American Jour-
nal of Psychology, 1961,74,333-346.
6. Schriever W. Experimentelle Studien liber stereoskopische Sehen. Zeit-
schrift furPsychologie, 1925, 96, 113-170.
7. Ratoosh P. On interposition as a cue for the perception of distance. Procee-
dings of the National Academy of Science, 1949, 35, 257-259.
Chapanis A., McCleary R. A. Interposition as a cue for the perception of
relative distance. The Journal of General Psychology, 1953, 48, 113-132.
Wheatstone С. Contributions to the physiology of vision: on some remar-
kable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision: Part 1. Phi-
losophical Transactions, 1838, 371-394; Contributions to the physiology of
vision: Part 2. Philosophical Transactions, 1852, 1-17.
Wheatstone. Op. cit., 1852, 13-14.
Julesz В. Foundations of Cyclopean Perception. University of Chicago Press,
1971.
Wallach H., Zuckerman C. The constancy of stereoscopic depth, American
Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 403-412; Gogel W. C. Perception of depth
from binocular disparity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 67,
379-386; Scalar perception with binocular cues of distance. American Jour-
nal of Psychology, 1972, 85, 477-498.
pulfrich C. Die Stereoskopie in Dienste der isochromen und heterochromen
Photometric. Naturwissenschaften, 1922, 10, 533-564; 569-601; 714-722;
735-743; 751-761; Lit A. The magnitude of the Pulfrich stereo-phenomenon
as a function of binocular differences of intensity at various levels of illumi-
nation. American Journal of Psychology, 1949, 62, 159-181.
Hering E. Beitrage zur Physiologic. Heft 1. W. Engelman, 1861.
Boring E. The Physical Dimensions of Consciousness. Dover Publications,
Inc., 1963 (впервые опубликовано в 1933); Kaufman L. Sight and Mind: An
Introduction to Visual Perception. Chap. 8. Oxford University Press, 1974.
Kaufman. Op. cit., 1974. Эта глава из работы Кауфмана содержит гораздо
более обширное описание проблемы бинокулярного взаимодействия, чем
приведенное здесь.
Werner H. Dynamics in binocular depth perception. Psychological Mono-
graphs, 1937 (whole no. 218).
Wallach H., Lindauer J. On the definition of retinal disparity Psychologische
Beitrage, 1962,6,521-530.
Barlow H. В. Bllakemore C., Pettigrew J. D. The neural mechanism of
binocular depth discrimination. Journal of Physiology, 1967, 193, 327-342;
Pettigrew J. D. The neurophysiology of binocular vision. Scientific Ameri-
can, 1972,227,84-95,
Gibson J. J., Corel W. Does motion perspective independently produce the
impression of a receding surface? Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1952,44,16-18.
Gibson E. J., Gibson J. J., Smith 0. W. Motion parallax as a determinant of
perceiving depth. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 40-51. For
a review of research on this subject; Epstein W" Park J. Examination of
Gibsons psychophysical hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 180-
196.
Wallach H., OConnell D. N. The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology, 1953,45,205-217.
Musotti C. L. Sui fenomeni stereocinetici. Archivio Italiano Psicologia, 1924,
3, 105-120. Музатти связывает открытие этого эффекта с именем Бе-
нусси; Wallach H., Weisz A., Adams P. A. Circles and derived figures in ro-
tation. American Journal of Psychology, 1956, 69, 48-59.
Green В. F. Jr. Figure coherence in the kinetic depth effect. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, 1961,62,272-282.
Leibowitz H., Moore D. Role of changes in accommodation and convergence
in the perception of size. Journal of Optical Society of America, 1966, 56,
1120-1123; Wallach H., Floor L. The use of size matching to demonstrate the
effectiveness of accommodation and convergence as cues for distance. Per-
ception and Psychophysics, 1971, 10, 423-428.
Heinemann E. G" Tulving E., Nachmias J. The effect of oculomotor adjust-
ments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 1959, 72, 32-45.
Lashley К. S., Russell J. T. The mechanisms of vision XI. A preliminary
test of innate organization. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1934, 45, 136-
144
j. о
ВОСПРИЯТИЕ ТРЕТЬЕГО ИЗМЕРЕНИЯ
28. Hess Е. Н. Space perception in the chick. Scientific American, 1956, 195, 71-
80.
29. Фанц P. Восприятие формы. - В сб.: Восприятие. Механизмы и модели.
М.: Мир, 1974, с. 338-350.
30. Gibson Е. J., Walk R. D. The "visual cliff". Scientific American, 1960, 202
64-71.
31. Kurke М. 1. The role of motor experience in the visual discrimination of
depth in the chick. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1955, 86, 191-196.
32. Gibson Е. J. Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. AppletoA-
Century-Crofts, 1969.
33. Campos J. J., Langer A., Krowitz A. Cardiac responses on the visual cliff in
prelocomotor human infants. Science, 1970, 170, 196-197.
34. Бауэр Т. Зрительный мир грудного младенца. - В сб.: Восприятие. Ме-
ханизмы и модели. М.: Мир, 1974, с. 351-360.
35. Palen G. F. Focusing cues in the visual cliff behavior of day-old chicks. Jour-
nal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1965, 59, 452-454.
36. Walk R. D., Gibson Е. J. A comparative and analytical study of visual depth
perception. Psychological Monographs, 1961, 75. (Whole no. 519),
37. Boll W" Tronick Е. Infant responses to impending collision: optical and real.
Science, 1971,171,818-820.
38. Schiff W., Caviness J. A., Gibson J. J. Persistent fear responses in rhesus
monkeys in response to the optical stimulus of "looming". Science, 1962,
136, 982-983. See also a prior study with chicks; Fishman R., Tallarico R. B.
Studies of visual depth perception: II. Avoidance as an indicator response in
chicks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 12, 251-257.
39. Bower Т. G. R., Broughton J. М., Moore М. K. The coordination of visual
and tactual input in infants. Perception Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 51-53.
40. Wallach Н., OConnell D. N., Neisser U. The memory effect of visual per-
ception of three-dimensional form. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1953,45,360-368.
41. Lopfermann Н. Psychologische Untersuchungen liber die Wirkung Zweidi-
mensionaler korperlicher Gebilde. Psychologische Forschung, 1930, 13,
293-364.
42. Hochberg J., Brooks V. The psychophysics of form: reversible-perspective
drawings of spatial objects. American Journal of Psychology, 1960, 73, 337-
354; Attneave F. Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psycholo-
gical Review, 1954,61,183-193.
43. lttleson W. Н., Kilpatrick F. P. Experiments in perception. Scientific Ameri-
can, 1951,185,50-55.
44. Gogel W. The tendency to see objects as equidistant and its inverse relation
to lateral separation. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, 1-17.
45. Ames A. Jr. Visual perception and the rotating trapezoidal window. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 1951,65.
46. Wolloch Н. Memory effects in perception. Доклад прочитан на Между-
народном Конгрессе по психологии, Монреаль, 1954.
47. Dinnerstein D., Wertheimer М. Some determinants of phenomenal overlap-
ping. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 21-37.
48. Ibid.
49. Hess Е. Н. Development of the chicks responses to light and shade cues to
depth. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1950, 43,
112-122.
50. Hershberger W. Attached shadow orientation perceived as depth by chickens
reared in an environment illuminated from below. Journal of Comparative
and Psysiological Psychology, 1970, 73, 407-411.
51. Wallach Н., Karsh Е. В. Why is the modification of stereoscopic depth-per-
ception so rapid? American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 413-420.
! .177
f2. Wallach Н., Karsh Е. В. The modification of stereoscopic depth-perception
I and kinetic depth effect. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 429-435.
l3. Mack A., Chitayat D. Eye-dependent and disparity adaptation to opposite
I visual-field rotations. American Journal of Psychology, 1970, 83, 352-371.
4. Epstein W., Morgan С. L. Adaptation to binocular image magnification: mo-
dification of the disparity-depth relationship. American Journal of Psycholo-
gy, 1970,83,322-329.
15. Epstein andMorgan-Paap, (1)
156. Weinstein S. The perception of depth in the absence of texture-gradient.
American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70,611-615.
[7. Epstein W. Perceived depth as a function of relative height under three
background conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1966 72
335-338.
8. Gruber Н. Е" King W. L" Ling S. Moon illusion: an event in imaginary space.
Science, 1963,139,750-752.
I
179
Глава
Мы воспринимаем объекты в определенных положениях по
отношению друг к другу и к нам самим. Мы также восприни-
маем объекты как имеющие определенную ориентацию, напри-
мер линия видится нами как вертикальная или наклонная.
Здесь читатель может удивиться, почему психологи рассматри-
вают восприятие направления или ориентации в качестве про-
блемы, достойной изучения. Можно подумать, что объект или,
точнее, отдельная точка объекта могла бы восприниматься рас-
положенной <прямо перед головой>, если бы ее изображение
попадало в центр сетчатки на фовеа; и что если бы изобра-
жение попадало на периферические участки сетчатки, то оно
воспринималось бы как объект, расположенный сбоку. Или
можно подумать, что линия воспринималась бы вертикальной,
когда вертикально ее изображение на сетчатке, и наклонной,
когда наклонно ее ретинальное изображение.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102