Cognitive Interpretation of Visual Signals

  • William R. Hendee


How we see, and how we know what we see, are conundrums that have perplexed scientists for decades and intrigued philosophers for centuries. In pre-Socratic times, philosophers attempted to separate interactions with the external world into those that involve the human senses and those that do not involve the senses directly. The theory of Empedocles, typical of the reasoning employed by several early philosophers, suggested that the senses are affected by tiny, particle-like effluences emitted by objects. As the effluences strike the body, they lodge in one set of pores or another depending on their exact size and configuration. Each set of pores gives rise to a particular sensation experienced by the observer. For a stone to be seen as a gray, round object, its effluences would have to be captured by the pores that characterize gray, round objects. These pores are located in the eyes, because the object is seen. Objects that are heard emit effluences that are captured by the ears, and effluences that are captured by the nose give rise to the sensation of smell.


Color Space Visual Signal External World Color Vision Sensory Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [6.01]
    Barnes J. Perception: Early Greek theories. In: Gregory R.L., ed. Oxford Companion to the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987:603–604.Google Scholar
  2. [6.02]
    Barnes J. Aristotle. In: Gregory R.L., ed. Oxford Companion to the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press: 1987;38–40.Google Scholar
  3. [6.03]
    Scruton R. Spinoza. New York: Oxford University Press: 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [6.04]
    Locke J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). Nidditch PH., ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1975.Google Scholar
  5. [6.05]
    Newton I. Opticks (4th ed., 1704). London: Smith and Walford.Google Scholar
  6. [6.06]
    Walker R.C.S. Leibniz’s philosophy of mind. In: Gregory R.L., ed. Oxford Companion to the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press: 1987; 433–434.Google Scholar
  7. [6.07]
    Berkeley G. An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision (1709). New York: C.P. Dutton;1910.Google Scholar
  8. [6.08]
    Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason (1929, trans. Kemp Smith N.). London.Google Scholar
  9. [6.09]
    Price H. Hume’s Theory of the External World. Oxford: Clarendon; 1940.Google Scholar
  10. [6.10]
    von Helmholtz H. Handbook de Physiologischen Optik (Part I, 1856; Part II, 1860; Part III, 1866. Leipzig: Voss. 1925, trans. Southall G.). New York: Dover; 1962.Google Scholar
  11. [6.11]
    Gregory R.L. Concepts and Mechanisms of Perception. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1974.Google Scholar
  12. [6.12]
    Gibson J.J. The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1950.Google Scholar
  13. [6.13]
    Kohler W. Gestalt Psychology (1929). New York: Liveright; 1947.Google Scholar
  14. [6.14]
    Marr D. Vision. New York: Freeman; 1982.Google Scholar
  15. [6.15]
    Gregory R.L. The Intelligent Eye. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson; 1970.Google Scholar
  16. [6.16]
    Rock I. Perception. New York: Scientific American Library; 1984.Google Scholar
  17. [6.17]
    Zeki S. The visual image in mind and brain. Sci. Amer., 1992; 267:68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [6.18]
    Marroquin J.L. Human Visual Perception of Structure (M.Sc. thesis; Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science). Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1976.Google Scholar
  19. [6.19]
    Julesz B. Vision: The early warning system. In: Gregory R.L., ed. Oxford-Companion to the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987: 346.Google Scholar
  20. [6.20]
    Mackworth N.H. Stimulus density limits the useful field of view. In: R.A. Monty and J.W. Sender, eds., Eye Movements and Psychological Processes. New York: Wiley; 1976:307–321.Google Scholar
  21. [6.21]
    Bellemy L.J., Courtney A.J. Development of a search task for the measurement of peripheral visual acuity. Ergonomics; 1981, 24:597–599.Google Scholar
  22. [6.22]
    Sanders A.F. Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. Ergonomics; 1970, 13:101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [6.23]
    Julesz B. Textons, the elements of texture perception and their interactions. Nature 1981; 290:91–97.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [6.24]
    Mandelbrot B.B. The fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: Freeman; 1982.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [6.25]
    Chen C.C., Daponte J.S., Fox AM.D. Fractal feature analysis and classification of medical imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., MI-8: 133–142; 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [6.26]
    Cargill E.B., Donohoe K.J., Kolodny G., Parker A.J., Duane DP. Estimation of fractal dimension of parenchymal organs based on power spectral analysis in nuclear medicine scans. In: D.A. Ortendahl, J. Uacer (eds.), Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Inform. Proc. Med. Imag., 557–570; 1991.Google Scholar
  27. [6.27]
    Caldwell C.B., Stapleton S.J., Holdsworth D.W., Jong R.A., Weiser W.J., Cooke G. Characterization of mammographic parenchymal pattern by fractal dimension. Phy. Med. Biol, 1990; 35:235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [6.28]
    Nelson T.R., Manchester D.K. Modeling of lung morphogenesis using fractal geometries. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., MI-7:321–327; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [6.29]
    Thurston J.B., Carraher R.G. Optical Illusions and the Visual Arts. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1986.Google Scholar
  30. [6.30]
    Gregory R.L. Illusions, In: Gregory R.L., ed. Oxford Companion to the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987:337–343.Google Scholar
  31. [6.31]
    Hendee W.R. The perception of visual information. Radiographics 1987; 7(6): 1213–1219.Google Scholar
  32. [6.32]
    Escher M.C. The Graphic Work of MC Escher (2nd ed.). New York: Hawthorne Books; 1973.Google Scholar
  33. [6.33]
    Penrose R. Escher and the visual representation of mathematical idea. In: Coxeter H.S.M., Emner M., Penrose R., Teubre M.L., eds. M.C. Escher: Art and Science (2nd ed.). New York: North Holland; 1987: 143–157.Google Scholar
  34. [6.34]
    Parks T.E. Illusory figures. In: Gregory R.L., ed. Oxford Companion to the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987:344–347.Google Scholar
  35. [6.35]
    Descartes R. Meteores. Paris: 1638.Google Scholar
  36. [6.36]
    Hooke R. Micrographia (reprint of 1665 ed.). New York: Dover; 1961.Google Scholar
  37. [6.37]
    Young T. On the theory of light and colors. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 1802; 92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. Hendee

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations