short case study on perception

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Perception →

• 27 Feb 2024
• Research & Ideas

Why Companies Should Share Their DEI Data (Even When It’s Unflattering)

Companies that make their workforce demographics public earn consumer goodwill, even if the numbers show limited progress on diversity, says research by Ryan Buell, Maya Balakrishnan, and Jimin Nam. How can brands make transparency a differentiator?

• 06 Nov 2023

Did You Hear What I Said? How to Listen Better

People who seem like they're paying attention often aren't—even when they're smiling and nodding toward the speaker. Research by Alison Wood Brooks, Hanne Collins, and colleagues reveals just how prone the mind is to wandering, and sheds light on ways to stay tuned in to the conversation.

• 24 Jan 2023

Passion at Work Is a Good Thing—But Only If Bosses Know How to Manage It

Does showing passion mean doing whatever it takes to get the job done? Employees and managers often disagree, says research by Jon Jachimowicz. He offers four pieces of advice for leaders who yearn for more spirit and intensity at their companies.

• 06 Dec 2022

Latest Isn’t Always Greatest: Why Product Updates Capture Consumers

Consumers can't pass up a product update—even if there's no improvement. Research by Leslie John, Michael Norton, and Ximena Garcia-Rada illustrates the powerful allure of change. Are we really that naïve?

• 19 May 2020
• Working Paper Summaries

Global Behaviors and Perceptions at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic

An online survey of more than 110,000 people in 175 countries conducted at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic found that most respondents believe that their governments and fellow citizens are not doing enough, which heightens their worries and depression levels. Decisive actions and strong leadership from policymakers change how people perceive their governments and other citizens, and in turn improve their mental health.

• 17 Mar 2020

From Sweetheart to Scapegoat: Brand Selfie-Taking Shapes Consumer Behavior

Using a dataset of more than 280,000 user reviews on Yelp, this paper describes a series of eight studies exploring how brand selfie-taking affects consumers’ behavior and sense of connection toward a brand.

• 11 Dec 2019

When to Apply?

Using a series of experiments, the authors studied gender differences in how job-seekers perceive their own qualifications for different opportunities and how this affects their decision to apply. Results suggest that soft touch employer interventions can improve the diversity of applicant pools even if candidate beliefs about their own ability are unchanged.

• 04 Sep 2019

'I Know Why You Voted for Trump' and Other Motivation Misperceptions

We often make knee-jerk assumptions about what motivates other people’s choices, a bad habit both in the political and business worlds. Kate Barasz explains what we can do about it. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 04 Mar 2019

The Revision Bias

Companies often release revised editions of books, director’s cuts of movies, and technological updates, on the assumption that revising products and services leads to better outcomes. Nine studies, however, document the revision bias: the tendency to prefer things that were revised, regardless of whether the revised versions are objectively better than their predecessors.

• 25 Feb 2019

How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

Researchers believe gender stereotypes hold women back in the workplace. Katherine Coffman's research adds a new twist: They can even cause women to question their own abilities. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 05 Feb 2019

Stereotypes and Belief Updating

Increasing evidence demonstrates that stereotyped beliefs drive key economic decisions. This paper shows the significant role of self-stereotyping in predicting beliefs about one’s own ability. Stereotypes do not just affect beliefs about ability when information is scarce. In fact, stereotypes color the way information is incorporated into beliefs, perpetuating initial biases.

• 17 Nov 2017

Equity Concerns Are Narrowly Framed

This paper based on a large online study finds that individuals tend to differentiate in their concerns about fairness along specific dimensions, especially time and money, and are much more worried about fairness in one (time) than the other (money). These attitudes may help explain a seemingly wide variety of phenomena.

• 06 Sep 2017

Class Matters: The Role of Social Class in High-Achieving Women's Career Narratives

This analysis of interviews with 40 female executives and entrepreneurs highlights five distinct types of career narratives that high-achieving women employ to explain their own career success. These narratives vary with the women’s family-of-origin social class. Among its contributions to practice, the study sheds light on the diversity of approaches possible in a successful career.

• 24 May 2017

Reinventing the American Wine Industry: Marketing Strategies and the Construction of Wine Culture

Since the 1960s, the United States has seen spectacular growth in wine consumption. This paper explores how businesses reinveted the image of wine. This creation of the new market, like other consumer products, had social and cultural consequences. In the US, wine became a status symbol and a renforcer of social and class divisions.

• 12 May 2017

Equality and Equity in Compensation

Why do some firms such as technology startups offer the same equity compensation packages to all new employees despite very different cash salaries? This paper presents evidence that workers dislike inequality in equity compensation more than salary compensation because of the perceived scarcity of equity.

• 01 Jun 2015

The Surprising Benefits of Oversharing

In a social media culture that encourages sharing of embarrassing information, revealing too much can benefit individuals but hurt businesses. New research papers from Leslie John and Michael Luca help explain why. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 14 May 2015

Humblebragging: A Distinct-and Ineffective-Self-Presentation Strategy

To humblebrag is to make a boast sound like a complaint, as in the example, "It annoys me when people mistake me for a celebrity." Humblebragging is so common in social media and everyday life that one could assume it is an effective self-promotional tactic. Yet five studies show this tactic tends to backfire because it makes other people doubt the sincerity of the humblebragger. Indeed, straightforwardly bragging is the better way to go. The authors of this paper also examine the psychology underlying humblebragging as an impression management tactic and highlight the role of perceived sincerity in impression management. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 19 Jan 2015

Is Wikipedia More Biased Than Encyclopædia Britannica?

By identifying politically biased language in Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia, Feng Zhu hopes to learn whether professional editors or open-sourced experts provide the most objective entries. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 25 Jul 2013

Why Unqualified Candidates Get Hired Anyway

Why do businesses evaluate candidates solely on past job performance, failing to consider the job's difficulty? Why do university admissions officers focus on high GPAs, discounting influence of easy grading standards? Francesca Gino and colleagues investigate the phenomenon of the "fundamental attribution error." Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 10 Mar 2011
• What Do You Think?

To What Degree Does the Job Make the Person?

Summing Up: Jobs shape us as much as we shape our jobs, Jim Heskett's readers suggest. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 5. Sensation and Perception

Sensation and Perception Introduction

Jessica Motherwell McFarlane

Approximate reading time: 41.5 minutes

Close your eyes and picture a pink elephant floating on a cloud. Can you see it? How vivid is it? Now, try to imagine a creature you’ve never seen or heard of — harder, isn’t it?

There’s an age-old saying: “seeing is believing”. We’ve been conditioned to trust what we see and remain sceptical of the unseen. Yet, in the realm of psychology, particularly sensation and perception, our scientific evidence tells us the reverse is true: “believing is seeing”.

When our beliefs dictate what we see, it’s not merely a trick of the mind or a creation of our imagination. Our brain is like a masterful editor, cutting, pasting, and altering the raw footage of the world based on our beliefs, experiences, and expectations. As an example, let’s look at how gaming can change beliefs, which can then alter our perceptions of the world.

You’re nestled into your chair, controller in hand, eyes fixed on the screen. The sounds of the virtual world surround you, and for the next few hours, you’re not just playing a game — you’re in the game. The line between reality and the digital realm blurs. But did you know that these gaming experiences can reshape how you sense and perceive the real world?

Recent research has found that avid video gamers often demonstrate enhanced visual attention, improved hand-eye coordination, enhanced ability to distinguish shades of grey, and even altered depth perception (Bavelier et al., 2012). Perception is about more than just enhanced abilities, however. Gamers often report instances where, after prolonged play, the real world briefly takes on a game-like quality. A phenomenon termed game transfer phenomena manifests as gamers experience involuntary game-related perceptions, thoughts, and behaviours in their everyday lives; these can range from visual or auditory illusions, dreaming about the game, and involuntary movements mimicking game controls, to verbal outbursts related to the game. Of particular interest here is that some players might momentarily perceive the real world through the logic or physics of the game world. For instance, perceiving real-world structures as if they were constructed in a game environment, or expecting real-world objects to behave as they do in a game. Total immersion in their game has momentarily changed their created game-based beliefs, which then change perceptions of the world. Game elements can bleed into real-world cognition, showing just how profoundly our beliefs and experiences can shape perception (de Gortari, 2019; Ortiz de Gortari & Griffiths, 2014).

What we expect or believe can powerfully shape what we perceive. It’s not about disregarding the information our senses provide, but rather understanding that our brain has the final say in the narrative we construct from that information. This is why we must always examine the stories we tell ourselves and others because those stories can radically change how we — and others — perceive our world. In this chapter, we’ll dive deep into the science of our senses and discover how and why our perceptions are formed by our beliefs.

Picture yourself standing on a street in a city. You might notice a lot of things moving, like cars and people busy with their day. You might hear music from someone playing on the street or a car horn far away. You could smell the gas from cars or food from a nearby place selling snacks. And you might feel the hard ground under your shoes.

We use our senses to get important information about what’s around us. This helps us move around safely, find food, look for a place to stay, make friends, and stay away from things that could be dangerous.

This chapter will provide an overview of how sensory information is received and processed by the nervous system and how that affects our conscious experience of the world. We begin by learning the distinction between sensation and perception. Then we consider the physical properties of light and sound stimuli, along with an overview of the basic structure and function of the major sensory systems. We will discuss the historically important Gestalt theory of perception and how it can teach us how we are able to understand visual narratives (comics). Then, we will explore the skin senses of touch, temperature and pain. Next we will consider the senses of balance and proprioception. We will conclude our chapter the often overlooked sense of interoception — the ability to sense about what is happening inside our bodies.

What does it mean to sense something? Sensory receptors are specialised neurons that respond to specific types of stimuli. When sensory information is detected by a sensory receptor, sensation has occurred. For example, light that enters the eye causes chemical changes in cells that line the back of the eye. These cells relay messages, in the form of action potentials (as you learned when studying biopsychology), to the central nervous system. The conversion from sensory stimulus energy to action potential is known as transduction .

We used to teach, in error, that humans have only five senses: vision, hearing (audition), smell (olfaction), taste (gustation), and touch (somatosensation). We actually have at least 12 senses, each one providing unique information about our inner and outer realities. Below is a mnemonic and definitions to help you learn about these twelve of our senses:

Very Happy Tigers Snuggle Tiny Pandas Inside Velvet Tents Near Old Elephants

• “Very” stands for Vision: Vision is the capacity to detect and interpret visual information from the environment through light perceived by the eyes.
• “Happy” stands for Hearing: Hearing is the sense that allows perception of sound by detecting vibrations through an organ, such as the ear.
• “Tigers” stands for Taste: Taste is the sense that perceives different flavours in substances, such as sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami, through taste buds in the mouth.
• “Snuggle” stands for Smell: Smell, or olfaction, is the ability to detect and identify different odours, which are chemical substances in the air, through receptors in the nose.
• “Tiny” stands for Touch: Touch, or tactile sense, involves perceiving pressure, vibration, temperature, pain, and other sensations on the skin.
• “Pandas” stands for Proprioception: Proprioception is the sense that allows the body to perceive its own position, motion, and equilibrium, even without visual cues.
• “Inside” stands for Interoception: Interoception is the sense of the internal state of the body, which can include feelings of hunger, thirst, digestion, or heart rate.
• “Velvet” stands for Vestibular sense: The vestibular sense involves balance and spatial orientation, maintained by detecting gravitational changes, head movement, and body movement.
• “Tents” stands for Thermoception: Thermoception is the sense of heat and the absence of heat (cold) perceived by the skin.
• “Near” stands for Nociception: Nociception is the sensory nervous system’s response to harmful or potentially harmful stimuli, often resulting in the sensation of pain.
• “Old” stands for Oleogustus: Oleogustus is the unique taste of fat, recognised as a distinct taste alongside sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami.
• “Elephants” stands for Equilibrioception: Equilibrioception, often considered a part of the vestibular sense, is the physiological sense that helps prevent animals from falling over when walking or standing still.

What is Psychophysics?

Psychophysics is a part of psychology that looks at how physical things around us, like light and sound, affect what we sense and how we think. Gustav Fechner, a German psychologist, started this field. He was the first to explore how the strength of something we sense, like a bright light or a loud sound, is linked to our ability to notice it (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005).

Fechner and other scientists developed ways to measure how well we can sense things. One key thing they look at is how we notice very faint or weak things. The absolute threshold is the lightest, quietest, or least intense thing we can just barely sense. For example, think about a hearing test where you have to say if you hear a very soft sound or not (Wickens, 2002).

The Challenge of Faint Signals

When signals are very faint, it’s hard to be sure if we’re sensing them or not. Our ears always pick up some background noise, so sometimes we might think we heard something when there was nothing, or we might miss a sound that was there. The job is to figure out if what we’re sensing is just background noise or an actual sound mixed in with the noise. This is where signal detection analysis comes in. It’s a method to figure out how well someone can tell the difference between real signals and just noise (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005; Wickens, 2002).

Understanding Signal Detection Analysis

The problem for us is that the very faint signals create uncertainty. Because our ears are constantly sending background information to the brain, you will sometimes think that you heard a sound when none was there, and you will sometimes fail to detect a sound that is there. Your task is to determine whether the neural activity that you are experiencing is due to the background noise alone or is the result of a signal within the noise. The responses that you give on the hearing test can be analysed using signal detection analysis. Signal detection analysis is a technique used to determine the ability of the perceiver to separate true signals from background noise (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005; Wickens, 2002). As you can see in Figure SP.2, “Outcomes of a signal detection analysis,” each judgement trial creates four possible outcomes. A hit occurs when you, as the listener, correctly say “yes” when there is a sound. A false alarm occurs when you respond “yes” to no signal. In the other two cases you respond “no” — either a miss (saying “no” when there was a signal) or a correct rejection (saying “no” when there was in fact no signal).

The analysis of the data from a psychophysics experiment creates two measures. One measure, known as sensitivity, refers to the true ability of the individual to detect the presence or absence of signals. People who have better hearing will have higher sensitivity than will those with poorer hearing. The other measure, response bias, refers to a behavioural tendency to respond “yes” to the trials, which is independent of sensitivity.

Understanding Sensitivity and Response Bias in Psychophysics Experiments

In psychophysics experiments, we focus on two key concepts: sensitivity and response bias. Sensitivity is about how well someone can detect signals. For instance, someone with excellent hearing is more sensitive and can detect sounds better than someone with average hearing. Signal detection analysis separates true signals from background noise and evaluates the ability to detect faint signals. On the other hand, response bias is about a person’s tendency to say “yes, I noticed something” during tests, which is not necessarily linked to their actual sensitivity. In other words, a response bias is the degree of eagerness a person has to find and report a signal whether it is present or not.

Example of Sensitivity in Medical Scenarios: Another application of signal detection occurs when medical technicians study body images for the presence of cancerous tumours. Again, a miss (in which the technician incorrectly determines that there is no tumour) can be very costly, but false alarms (referring patients who do not have tumours to further testing) also have consequences, such as unnecessary exposure to radiation. The ultimate decisions that the technicians make are based on the quality of the signal (clarity of the image), their experience and training (the ability to recognise certain shapes and textures of tumours), and their best guesses about the relative costs of misses versus false alarms.

Example: Response bias in real life – the forest fire warden

Imagine being a seasoned forest fire warden, in charge of monitoring a vast, vulnerable woodland. Your duty revolves around detecting the tiniest signs of a potential fire, such as a hint of smoke in the distance, a lightning strike, or a spark from a neglected campfire. In this scenario, sounding a false alarm about a possible fire may seem less severe than overlooking a small warning sign that could ignite a full-blown forest blaze. Accordingly, you adopt an extremely cautious response bias, alerting your team at the slightest suspicion, even amid uncertainties. This might mean your precision could be low due to recurrent false alarms, but it’s a sacrifice made for the greater goal of preserving the forest. Despite the risk of numerous false alarms, this heightened vigilance underlines the critical role fire wardens play, potentially saving entire forests through their unwavering alertness to the smallest shifts in their surroundings.

Weber’s Law and Just Noticeable Difference

Another important idea is the difference threshold, or just noticeable difference (JND). This is about how small a change in something needs to be before we can notice it. Ernst Weber, a German physiologist, found out that noticing differences depends more on the ratio of the change to the original thing than on the size of the change itself (Weber, 1834/1996). For example, adding a teaspoon of sugar to a cup of coffee that already has a lot of sugar won’t make much difference. But if the coffee had very little sugar to begin with, you’ll notice the extra teaspoon more.

Example: Weber’s Law in daily life

Weber’s Law also applies to everyday things, like playing a video game. If the game is already loud and the volume goes up a little, you might not notice. But if the game is quiet and the volume increases by the same amount, you’ll probably notice the change. So, how much we notice a change depends not just on the change itself, but on how big that change is compared to what we started with.

Supplement SP.1: Deep Dive – Are you under the influence of subliminal signals? [New Tab]

What is the difference between sensation and perceptions? You walk into a kitchen and smell the scent of baking naan, the sensation is the scent receptors detecting the odour of yummy, hot naan, but the perception may be “Mmm, this smells like the naan Grandma used to bake when the family gathered for holidays.” In this example, sensation is a physical process, whereas perception is psychological. Then there is the reciprocal back and forth between sensation and perception when the smell of naan makes us think of Grandma’s naan, which reminds us of her hugs, which motivates us to stay in the kitchen longer so we can breathe in more yummy naan smells and linger in the memories we have about the loving times we had with Grandma.

While our sensory receptors are constantly collecting information from the environment, it is ultimately how we interpret that information that affects how we interact with the world. Perception refers to the way sensory information is organised, interpreted, and consciously experienced. Perception involves enviro-bodily, self-in-search, and reciprocal processing. Enviro-bodily (formerly called bottom-up) processing refers to sensory information coming from the environment or our own physical body to our senses. (e.g., Gregory, 1966). Self-in-search (formerly called top-down) processing refers to our knowledge and expectancy inspiring our active search of the environment or our own physical body to find something (Egeth & Yantis, 1997; Fine & Minnery, 2009; Neisser, 1976; Yantis & Egeth, 1999). A reciprocal (an influence that goes back and forth) — process refers to the environment or our body offering up sensory information that then changes our ability to sense more — or less — of the environment or our body.

• Enviro-body processing (also known as “bottom-up”): Imagine that you and some friends are sitting in a crowded restaurant eating lunch and talking. It is very noisy, and you are concentrating on your friend’s face to hear what she is saying. Then the sound of breaking glass and clang of metal pans hitting the floor rings out; the server dropped a large tray of food. Although you were attending to your meal and conversation, that crashing sound would likely get through your attentional filters and capture your attention. You would have no choice but to notice it. That attentional capture would be caused by the sound from the environment: it would be enviro-bodily processing.
• Self-in search processing (also known as “top-down”): Alternatively, self-in-search processes are generally goal directed, slow, deliberate, effortful, and under your control (Fine & Minnery, 2009; Miller & Cohen, 2001; Miller & D’Esposito, 2005). For instance, if you misplaced your keys, how would you look for them? If you had a yellow key fob, you would probably look for yellowness of a certain size in specific locations, such as on the counter, coffee table, and other similar places. You would not look for yellowness on your ceiling fan, because you know keys are not normally lying on top of a ceiling fan. That act of searching for a certain size of yellowness in some locations and not others would be self-in-search — under your control and based on your experience.
• Reciprocal processing : Imagine you’re taking a leisurely stroll through a serene forest. As you walk, you notice the rustling leaves and the gentle breeze brushing against your skin. The environment offers up its calming sights and sounds, shaping your perceptual experience. In return, your newly refreshed attentive presence in the forest allows you to notice more subtle shifts in nature — the chirping of birds and the scent of pine, enriching the environment with your own sensory inputs. This mutual exchange of information between your ever-changing body and a living environment exemplifies reciprocal perception (Smith & Thelen, 2003). This process allows you to grow a different quality of presence in the environment where both you and the surroundings actively contribute to the unfolding perceptual experience, creating a dynamic and interconnected relationship (Witherington, 2005). Eleanor Gibson referred to this form of reciprocal processing as the ecological approach to perception (Gibson, 2000).

Supplement SP.2: Deep Dive – Eleanor Gibson: Pioneer in Perceptual Learning and Development [New Tab]

How Emotions Affect Our Perceptions

Imagine you’re watching a suspenseful movie and suddenly every sound seems louder, or you’re walking after a scary story and the shadows seem darker. Ever wondered why? Elizabeth Phelps might have an answer for that. She and her colleagues found that our feelings — whether we’re scared, happy, sad, or excited — can change the way we perceive and remember things (Phelps, Ling, & Carrasco, 2006).

Phelps and her team realised that when something makes us feel a certain way (like that jump scare in a horror movie), it’s not just that we remember it better, but it also stands out more at that moment (Phelps, Ling, & Carrasco, 2006). It’s like our emotions put on a pair of magnifying glasses that change the way we see the world.

Since then, other researchers have validated that emotions can influence our perception (e.g., Riggs, Fujioka, Chan, McQuiggan, and Anderson, 2019). For example, some researchers found that when we’re feeling emotions, we pay more attention, especially if the content is negative; think about why we can’t look away from a car crash (Pool, Brosch, Delplanque, & Sander, 2016). Others note that when we’re emotionally charged, our focus gets a super-boost, making everything clearer (Bocanegra & Zeelenberg, 2017). According to Mather and Schoeke (2011), the more emotional an event is, the better it sticks in our memory, kind of like how we can’t forget that one embarrassing moment from high school.

In sum, emotions aren’t just about ‘feels.’ Emotions powerfully shape the way we see and interact with everything around us. Think of it as your emotions giving you a personalised, experiential tour of the world. We will discuss more about this in the chapter on emotion.

Predictive coding in perception

Andy Clark (2013) presents another kind of reciprocal (back and forth) model of the perception based on prediction. This concept, known as predictive coding , suggests that our brains constantly formulate hypotheses or predictions about our environment, and that these hypotheses are continually updated, based on incoming sensory information. This is a significant departure from the traditional, passive model of perception, where the brain is seen as merely reacting to sensory stimuli. Furthermore, Clark integrates this concept with the theory of embodied cognition, which emphasises the role of our physical bodies and the environment in shaping cognitive processes. In essence, cognition isn’t merely a product of internal brain computations but is also influenced by our interactions with the world around us.

Returning to our example of the lost keys but looking through the lens of predictive coding, if you misplaced your keys, you would probably start to predict where you might have left them based on your past behaviours and the layout of your environment. For example, if you typically drop your keys on the kitchen counter when you get home, your brain will predict that this is the most likely location and direct your attention there first. As you search for your keys, your brain constantly updates its predictions based on the incoming sensory information. If you don’t find your keys on the kitchen counter, this discrepancy between your prediction (keys on the counter) and the actual sensory input (no keys on the counter) generates a prediction error.

Your brain uses this prediction error to update its model of the world. It might now predict that the keys are in your coat pocket, if that’s another place you often leave them. You’ll continue this cycle of prediction and error correction until you locate your keys. This is predictive coding at work: your brain makes educated guesses about where your keys are, then refines those guesses based on what you actually find as you search. It’s a dynamic process of hypothesis testing, with your brain continuously updating its predictions to align with the reality of your sensory input.

Sensory adaptation

Even though our perceptions are formed from our sensations, it’s not the case that all sensations lead to perception. Actually, we frequently don’t notice stimuli that remain fairly steady over long periods. This is referred to as sensory adaptation . Imagine you’re at a concert, and you’ve secured a spot right next to the speakers. The music is extremely loud, to the point where it’s nearly deafening. You’re initially worried about whether you’ll be able to endure the concert at such a high volume. However, as the night goes on and you become heavily focused on the performance, the music seems to become less overpowering. The speakers are still blaring and your ears are still picking up the sound, but you’re no longer as aware of the loudness as you were at the start of the concert. This lack of awareness despite the constant loud music is an example of sensory adaptation. It illustrates that while sensation and perception are closely linked, they’re not the same thing.

Did You See the Gorilla?: Divided attention, perceptual inattention, and change inattention

Attention (the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one aspect of the environment while ignoring other things) significantly influences the interaction between sensation and perception. As an example, consider a university student sitting in a lecture, absorbed in checking their emails on their phone. The hum of the professor’s voice, the shuffling of feet, and the occasional whisper from classmates all register as background noise that the student’s senses pick up but their attention filters out. Suddenly, the professor mentions something about an “exam” in the next class. This keyword acts like a spark, instantly redirecting the student’s attention. Although the professor’s voice had been a constant stimulus, it’s only now, with their attention refocused, that the student truly perceives what the professor is saying. Attention has the power to shape our perception from the numerous sensations we continuously encounter (Broadbent, 1958).

Divided Attention

Divided attention , also known as multitasking, refers to the cognitive ability to concentrate on two or more tasks at the same time. This kind of attention is critical in our daily lives, enabling us to process different streams of information concurrently (Treisman, 1960). For example, you might be listening to music while preparing a meal or having a conversation while driving.

The effectiveness of divided attention can vary based on the difficulty and familiarity of the tasks. If at least one task is simple and/or well-practiced, divided attention may be effective. For instance, many people can successfully walk (a well-practiced task) while having a conversation (a potentially complex task) (Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976). Some researchers suggest, however, that when two tasks are complex and/or unfamiliar, they compete for cognitive resources, often leading to decreased performance on one or both tasks (Pashler, 1994).

In today’s digital age, the concept of divided attention is even more relevant, as we frequently switch between different tasks and media. However, this can also lead to a phenomenon known as “ cognitive overload “, in which the demands of multitasking exceed our cognitive capacity, resulting in decreased efficiency and productivity (Sweller, 1988). It’s important to note that despite divided attention being commonplace in our lives, multitasking can lead to errors and can be less efficient than focusing on one task at a time, especially for more complex tasks (Salvucci & Taatgen, 2008).

Perceptual Inattention

Perceptual inattention , or what used to be called “inattention blindness” is the failure to perceive a stimulus in the environment. The term “blindness” is specific to vision. We can, however, be inattentive to any incoming sensory stimulus like a bad smell, or noisy kitchen sounds, or a room that is getting too cold. Since the term “blindness” is not comprehensive enough to describe the entire phenomenon, we will use the term perceptual inattentiveness in this textbook.

One of the most interesting demonstrations of the importance of attention in determining our perception of the environment occurred in a famous study conducted by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris (1999). In this study, participants watched a video of people dressed in black and white passing basketballs. Participants were asked to count the number of times the team dressed in white passed the ball. During the video, a person dressed in a black gorilla costume walks among the two teams. You would think that someone would notice the gorilla, right? Nearly half of the people who watched the video didn’t notice the gorilla at all, despite the fact that he was clearly visible for nine seconds. Because participants were so focused on the number of times the team dressed in white was passing the ball, they completely tuned out other visual information. Perceptual inattention is the failure to notice something that is completely visible because the person was actively attending to something else and did not pay attention to other things (Mack & Rock, 1998; Simons & Chabris, 1999).

Watch the video: The Invisible Gorilla (featuring Daniel Simons) (5 minutes)

“The Invisible Gorilla (featuring Daniel Simons) (EMMY Winner)” video by BeckmanInstitute is licensed under the Standard YouTube licence.

Change inattention

Change inattention, which used to be known as “change blindness”, is a phenomenon where significant changes in a visual scene go unnoticed by observers, especially when these changes occur amidst visual disruptions or when the observer’s focus is elsewhere. Research indicates that high rates of change inattention are present during driving simulations across different age groups, suggesting that this phenomenon affects a wide range of real-world tasks (Saryazdi, Bak, & Campos, 2019).

Further investigation into the spatial dimensions of attention reveals that the detection of unexpected objects significantly increases when they appear outside the primary focus area, challenging traditional theories of attentional focus (Kreitz, Hüttermann, & Memmert, 2020). How does our attention to space around us affect our ability to notice unexpected changes or objects in our visual field? Traditional theories of attention, such as the spotlight model, suggest that our attention works like a spotlight that highlights a specific area of our visual field. Anything within this spotlight is processed in detail, while information outside of it receives less attention or might be ignored.

However, research by Kreitz, Hüttermann, & Memmert (2020) challenges this view by showing that people are more likely to detect unexpected objects when these objects appear outside of their primary focus area — outside the spotlight, contrary to what traditional theories would predict. This suggests that our attentional focus is not just a simple spotlight on a fixed area. Instead, it might be more flexible or distributed in a way that allows for the detection of significant stimuli even outside of the central area of focus.

This finding has implications for how we understand human attention and perception. It suggests that while we may focus our attention on a particular task or area, our perceptual system remains alert to important or novel stimuli that occur outside of this focus area. This could be an adaptive feature, allowing us to notice potentially relevant or threatening stimuli in our environment, enhancing our ability to respond to unexpected events.

Watch the video: Why You Miss Big Changes Right Before Your Eyes | NOVA | Inside NOVA:(4 minutes)

“Why You Miss Big Changes Right Before Your Eyes | NOVA | Inside NOVA:” video by NOVA PBS Official is licensed under the Standard YouTube licence.

Supplement SP.3: Deep Dive – Beliefs, values, prejudices, expectations, and life experiences affect perceptions [New Tab]

Supplement SP.4: Case Study – Bringing it all together: Amari and their lost phone [New Tab]

Image Attributions

Figure SP.1. “Amazing classical piano player” by Josh Appel on Unsplash .

Figure SP.2. Outcomes of a Signal Detection Analysis by Jennifer Walinga and Charles Stangor  is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

To calculate this time, we used a reading speed of 150 words per minute and then added extra time to account for images and videos. This is just to give you a rough idea of the length of the chapter section. How long it will take you to engage with this chapter will vary greatly depending on all sorts of things (the complexity of the content, your ability to focus, etc).

Sensation and Perception Introduction Copyright © 2024 by Jessica Motherwell McFarlane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Visual Perception Theory In Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is Visual Perception?

To receive information from the environment, we are equipped with sense organs, e.g., the eye, ear, and nose.  Each sense organ is part of a sensory system that receives sensory inputs and transmits sensory information to the brain.

A particular problem for psychologists is explaining how the physical energy received by sense organs forms the basis of perceptual experience. Sensory inputs are somehow converted into perceptions of desks and computers, flowers and buildings, cars and planes, into sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touch experiences.

A major theoretical issue on which psychologists are divided is the extent to which perception relies directly on the information present in the environment.  Some argue that perceptual processes are not direct but depend on the perceiver’s expectations and previous knowledge as well as the information available in the stimulus itself.

This controversy is discussed with respect to Gibson (1966), who has proposed a direct theory of perception which is a “bottom-up” theory, and Gregory (1970), who has proposed a constructivist (indirect) theory of perception which is a “top-down” theory.

Psychologists distinguish between two types of processes in perception: bottom-up processing and top-down processing .

Bottom-up processing is also known as data-driven processing because perception begins with the stimulus itself. Processing is carried out in one direction from the retina to the visual cortex, with each successive stage in the visual pathway carrying out an ever more complex analysis of the input.

Top-down processing refers to the use of contextual information in pattern recognition. For example, understanding difficult handwriting is easier when reading complete sentences than reading single and isolated words. This is because the meaning of the surrounding words provides a context to aid understanding.

Gregory (1970) and Top-Down Processing Theory

Psychologist Richard Gregory (1970) argued that perception is a constructive process that relies on top-down processing.

Stimulus information from our environment is frequently ambiguous, so to interpret it, we require higher cognitive information either from past experiences or stored knowledge in order to make inferences about what we perceive. Helmholtz called it the ‘likelihood principle’.

For Gregory, perception is a hypothesis which is based on prior knowledge. In this way, we are actively constructing our perception of reality based on our environment and stored information.

• A lot of information reaches the eye, but much is lost by the time it reaches the brain (Gregory estimates about 90% is lost).
• Therefore, the brain has to guess what a person sees based on past experiences. We actively construct our perception of reality.
• Richard Gregory proposed that perception involves a lot of hypothesis testing to make sense of the information presented to the sense organs.
• Our perceptions of the world are hypotheses based on past experiences and stored information.
• Sensory receptors receive information from the environment, which is then combined with previously stored information about the world which we have built up as a result of experience.
• The formation of incorrect hypotheses will lead to errors of perception (e.g., visual illusions like the Necker cube).

Supporting Evidence

There seems to be an overwhelming need to reconstruct the face, similar to Helmholtz’s description of “unconscious inference.” An assumption based on past experience.

Perceptions can be ambiguous

The Necker cube is a good example of this. When you stare at the crosses on the cube, the orientation can suddenly change or “flip.”

It becomes unstable, and a single physical pattern can produce two perceptions.

Gregory argued that this object appears to flip between orientations because the brain develops two equally plausible hypotheses and is unable to decide between them.

When the perception changes though there is no change in the sensory input, the change of appearance cannot be due to bottom-up processing. It must be set downwards by the prevailing perceptual hypothesis of what is near and what is far.

Perception allows behavior to be generally appropriate to non-sensed object characteristics.

Critical Evaluation of Gregory’s Theory

1. the nature of perceptual hypotheses.

If perceptions make use of hypothesis testing, the question can be asked, “what kind of hypotheses are they?” Scientists modify a hypothesis according to the support they find for it, so are we, as perceivers, also able to modify our hypotheses? In some cases, it would seem the answer is yes.  For example, look at the figure below:

This probably looks like a random arrangement of black shapes. In fact, there is a hidden face in there; can you see it? The face is looking straight ahead and is in the top half of the picture in the center.  Now can you see it?  The figure is strongly lit from the side and has long hair and a beard.

Once the face is discovered, very rapid perceptual learning takes place and the ambiguous picture now obviously contains a face each time we look at it. We have learned to perceive the stimulus in a different way.

Although in some cases, as in the ambiguous face picture, there is a direct relationship between modifying hypotheses and perception, in other cases, this is not so evident.  For example, illusions persist even when we have full knowledge of them (e.g., the inverted face, Gregory 1974).

One would expect that the knowledge we have learned (from, say, touching the face and confirming that it is not “normal”) would modify our hypotheses in an adaptive manner. The current hypothesis testing theories cannot explain this lack of a relationship between learning and perception.

2. Perceptual Development

A perplexing question for the constructivists who propose perception is essentially top-down in nature is “how can the neonate ever perceive?”  If we all have to construct our own worlds based on past experiences, why are our perceptions so similar, even across cultures?  Relying on individual constructs for making sense of the world makes perception a very individual and chancy process.

The constructivist approach stresses the role of knowledge in perception and therefore is against the nativist approach to perceptual development.

However, a substantial body of evidence has been accrued favoring the nativist approach. For example, Newborn infants show shape constancy (Slater & Morison, 1985); they prefer their mother’s voice to other voices (De Casper & Fifer, 1980); and it has been established that they prefer normal features to scrambled features as early as 5 minutes after birth.

3. Sensory Evidence

Perhaps the major criticism of the constructivists is that they have underestimated the richness of sensory evidence available to perceivers in the real world (as opposed to the laboratory, where much of the constructivists” evidence has come from).

Constructivists like Gregory frequently use the example of size constancy to support their explanations. That is, we correctly perceive the size of an object even though the retinal image of an object shrinks as the object recedes. They propose that sensory evidence from other sources must be available for us to be able to do this.

However, in the real world, retinal images are rarely seen in isolation (as is possible in the laboratory). There is a rich array of sensory information, including other objects, background, the distant horizon, and movement. This rich source of sensory information is important to the second approach to explaining perception that we will examine, namely the direct approach to perception as proposed by Gibson.

Gibson argues strongly against the idea that perception involves top-down processing and criticizes Gregory’s discussion of visual illusions on the grounds that they are artificial examples and not images found in our normal visual environments.

This is crucial because Gregory accepts that misperceptions are the exception rather than the norm. Illusions may be interesting phenomena, but they might not be that information about the debate.

Gibson (1966) and Bottom-Up Processing

Gibson’s bottom-up theory suggests that perception involves innate mechanisms forged by evolution and that no learning is required. This suggests that perception is necessary for survival – without perception, we would live in a very dangerous environment.

Our ancestors would have needed perception to escape from harmful predators, suggesting perception is evolutionary.

James Gibson (1966) argues that perception is direct and not subject to hypothesis testing, as Gregory proposed. There is enough information in our environment to make sense of the world in a direct way.

His theory is sometimes known as the ‘Ecological Theory’ because of the claim that perception can be explained solely in terms of the environment.

For Gibson: the sensation is perception: what you see is what you get.  There is no need for processing (interpretation) as the information we receive about size, shape, distance, etc., is sufficiently detailed for us to interact directly with the environment.

Gibson (1972) argued that perception is a bottom-up process, which means that sensory information is analyzed in one direction: from simple analysis of raw sensory data to the ever-increasing complexity of analysis through the visual system.

Features of Gibson’s Theory

The optic array.

Perception involves ‘picking up’ the rich information provided by the optic array in a direct way with little/no processing involved.

Because of movement and different intensities of light shining in different directions, it is an ever-changing source of sensory information. Therefore, if you move, the structure of the optic array changes.

According to Gibson, we have the mechanisms to interpret this unstable sensory input, meaning we experience a stable and meaningful view of the world.

Changes in the flow of the optic array contain important information about what type of movement is taking place. The flow of the optic array will either move from or towards a particular point.

If the flow appears to be coming from the point, it means you are moving towards it. If the optic array is moving towards the point, you are moving away from it.

Invariant Features

the optic array contains invariant information that remains constant as the observer moves. Invariants are aspects of the environment that don’t change. They supply us with crucial information.

Two good examples of invariants are texture and linear perspective.

Another invariant is the horizon-ratio relation. The ratio above and below the horizon is constant for objects of the same size standing on the same ground.

OPTICAL ARRAY : The patterns of light that reach the eye from the environment.

RELATIVE BRIGHTNESS : Objects with brighter, clearer images are perceived as closer

TEXTURE GRADIENT : The grain of texture gets smaller as the object recedes. Gives the impression of surfaces receding into the distance.

RELATIVE SIZE : When an object moves further away from the eye, the image gets smaller. Objects with smaller images are seen as more distant.

SUPERIMPOSITION : If the image of one object blocks the image of another, the first object is seen as closer.

HEIGHT IN THE VISUAL FIELD : Objects further away are generally higher in the visual field

Evaluation of Gibson’s (1966) Direct Theory of Perception

Gibson’s theory is a highly ecologically valid theory as it puts perception back into the real world.

A large number of applications can be applied in terms of his theory, e.g., training pilots, runway markings, and road markings.

It’s an excellent explanation for perception when viewing conditions are clear. Gibson’s theory also highlights the richness of information in an optic array and provides an account of perception in animals, babies, and humans.

His theory is reductionist as it seeks to explain perception solely in terms of the environment. There is strong evidence to show that the brain and long-term memory can influence perception. In this case, it could be said that Gregory’s theory is far more plausible.

Gibson’s theory also only supports one side of the nature-nurture debate, that being the nature side. Again, Gregory’s theory is far more plausible as it suggests that what we see with our eyes is not enough, and we use knowledge already stored in our brains, supporting both sides of the debate.

Visual Illusions

Gibson’s emphasis on DIRECT perception provides an explanation for the (generally) fast and accurate perception of the environment. However, his theory cannot explain why perceptions are sometimes inaccurate, e.g., in illusions.

He claimed the illusions used in experimental work constituted extremely artificial perceptual situations unlikely to be encountered in the real world, however, this dismissal cannot realistically be applied to all illusions.

For example, Gibson’s theory cannot account for perceptual errors like the general tendency for people to overestimate vertical extents relative to horizontal ones.

Neither can Gibson’s theory explain naturally occurring illusions. For example, if you stare for some time at a waterfall and then transfer your gaze to a stationary object, the object appears to move in the opposite direction.

Bottom-up or Top-down Processing?

Neither direct nor constructivist theories of perception seem capable of explaining all perceptions all of the time.

Gibson’s theory appears to be based on perceivers operating under ideal viewing conditions, where stimulus information is plentiful and is available for a suitable length of time. Constructivist theories, like Gregory”s, have typically involved viewing under less-than-ideal conditions.

Research by Tulving et al. manipulated both the clarity of the stimulus input and the impact of the perceptual context in a word identification task. As the clarity of the stimulus (through exposure duration) and the amount of context increased, so did the likelihood of correct identification.

However, as the exposure duration increased, so the impact of context was reduced, suggesting that if stimulus information is high, then the need to use other sources of information is reduced.

One theory that explains how top-down and bottom-up processes may be seen as interacting with each other to produce the best interpretation of the stimulus was proposed by Neisser (1976) – known as the “Perceptual Cycle.”

DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers” voices . Science , 208(4448), 1174-1176.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. J. (1972). A Theory of Direct Visual Perception. In J. Royce, W. Rozenboom (Eds.). The Psychology of Knowing . New York: Gordon & Breach.

Gregory, R. (1970). The Intelligent Eye . London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Gregory, R. (1974). Concepts and Mechanisms of Perception . London: Duckworth.

Necker, L. (1832). LXI. Observations on some remarkable optical phenomena seen in Switzerland; and on an optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid . The London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1 (5), 329-337.

Slater, A., Morison, V., Somers, M., Mattock, A., Brown, E., & Taylor, D. (1990). Newborn and older infants” perception of partly occluded objects. Infant behavior and Development , 13(1), 33-49.

Further Information

Trichromatic Theory of Color Vision

Held and Hein (1963) Movement-Produced Stimulation in the Development of Visually Guided Behavior

What do visual illusions teach us?

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• Sensing and perceiving
• Temporal (time) relations
• Innate versus learned perception
• Synthesis of constituent elements
• Gestalt principles
• Context effects
• Perceptual constancies
• Effects of practice
• Effects of perceptual assumptions
• Information discrepancy
• Cultural influences

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - Perception
• Interaction Design Foundation - Perception
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Problem of Perception
• Social Science LibreTexts - The Perception Process
• BCcampus Open Publishing - Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International H5P Edition - Individual Differences in Person Perception
• Verywll Mind - What is Perception?
• University of Central Florida Pressbooks - What is Perception?
• University of Minnesota Libraries - Organizational Behavior - Perception
• Frontiers - Understanding human perception by human-made illusions
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Epistemology of Perception
• Table Of Contents

perception , in humans , the process whereby sensory stimulation is translated into organized experience. That experience, or percept, is the joint product of the stimulation and of the process itself. Relations found between various types of stimulation (e.g., light waves and sound waves) and their associated percepts suggest inferences that can be made about the properties of the perceptual process; theories of perceiving then can be developed on the basis of these inferences. Because the perceptual process is not itself public or directly observable (except to the perceiver himself, whose percepts are given directly in experience), the validity of perceptual theories can be checked only indirectly. That is, predictions derived from theory are compared with appropriate empirical data, quite often through experimental research.

Historically, systematic thought about perceiving was the province of philosophy . Indeed, perceiving remains of interest to philosophers, and many issues about the process that were originally raised by philosophers are still of current concern. As a scientific enterprise, however, the investigation of perception has especially developed as part of the larger discipline of psychology .

Philosophical interest in perception stems largely from questions about the sources and validity of what is called human knowledge (see epistemology ). Epistemologists ask whether a real, physical world exists independently of human experience and, if so, how its properties can be learned and how the truth or accuracy of that experience can be determined. They also ask whether there are innate ideas or whether all experience originates through contact with the physical world, mediated by the sense organs . For the most part, psychology bypasses such questions in favour of problems that can be handled by its special methods. The remnants of such philosophical questions, however, do remain; researchers are still concerned, for example, with the relative contributions of innate and learned factors to the perceptual process.

Such fundamental philosophical assertions as the existence of a physical world, however, are taken for granted among most of those who study perception from a scientific perspective. Typically, researchers in perception simply accept the apparent physical world particularly as it is described in those branches of physics concerned with electromagnetic energy , optics, and mechanics. The problems they consider relate to the process whereby percepts are formed from the interaction of physical energy (for example, light) with the perceiving organism. Of further interest is the degree of correspondence between percepts and the physical objects to which they ordinarily relate. How accurately, for example, does the visually perceived size of an object match its physical size as measured (e.g., with a yardstick)?

Questions of the latter sort imply that perceptual experiences typically have external referents and that they are meaningfully organized, most often as objects. Meaningful objects, such as trees, faces, books, tables, and dogs, are normally seen rather than separately perceived as the dots, lines, colours, and other elements of which they are composed. In the language of Gestalt psychologists, immediate human experience is of organized wholes ( Gestalten ), not of collections of elements.

A major goal of Gestalt theory in the 20th century was to specify the brain processes that might account for the organization of perception. Gestalt theorists, chief among them the German-U.S. psychologist and philosopher, the founder of Gestalt theory, Max Wertheimer and the German-U.S. psychologists Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Köhler , rejected the earlier assumption that perceptual organization was the product of learned relationships ( associations ), the constituent elements of which were called simple sensations . Although Gestaltists agreed that simple sensations logically could be understood to comprise organized percepts, they argued that percepts themselves were basic to experience. One does not perceive so many discrete dots (as simple sensations), for example; the percept is that of a dotted line.

Without denying that learning can play some role in perception, many theorists took the position that perceptual organization reflects innate properties of the brain itself. Indeed, perception and brain functions were held by Gestaltists to be formally identical (or isomorphic), so much so that to study perception is to study the brain. Much contemporary research in perception is directed toward inferring specific features of brain function from such behaviour as the reports ( introspections ) people give of their sensory experiences. More and more such inferences are gratifyingly being matched with physiological observations of the brain itself.

Many investigators relied heavily on introspective reports, treating them as though they were objective descriptions of public events. Serious doubts were raised in the 1920s about this use of introspection by the U.S. psychologist John B. Watson and others, who argued that it yielded only subjective accounts and that percepts are inevitably private experiences and lack the objectivity commonly required of scientific disciplines . In response to objections about subjectivism, there arose an approach known as behaviourism that restricts its data to objective descriptions or measurements of the overt behaviour of organisms other than the experimenter himself. Verbal reports are not excluded from consideration as long as they are treated strictly as public (objective) behaviour and are not interpreted as literal, reliable descriptions of the speaker’s private (subjective, introspective) experience. The behaviouristic approach does not rule out the scientific investigation of perception; instead, it modestly relegates perceptual events to the status of inferences. Percepts of others manifestly cannot be observed, though their properties can be inferred from observable behaviour (verbal and nonverbal).

One legacy of behaviourism in contemporary research on perception is a heavy reliance on very simple responses (often nonverbal), such as the pressing of a button or a lever. One advantage of this Spartan approach is that it can be applied to organisms other than man and to human infants (who also cannot give verbal reports). This restriction does not, however, cut off the researcher from the rich supply of hypotheses about perception that derive from his own introspections. Behaviourism does not proscribe sources of hypotheses; it simply specifies that only objective data are to be used in testing those hypotheses.

Behaviouristic methods for studying perception are apt to call minimally on the complex, subjective, so-called higher mental processes that seem characteristic of adult human beings; they thus tend to dehumanize perceptual theory and research. Thus, when attention is limited to objective stimuli and responses, parallels can readily be drawn between perceiving (by living organisms) and information processing (by such devices as electronic computers). Indeed, it is from this information-processing approach that some of the more intriguing theoretical contributions (e.g., abstract models of perception) are currently being made. It is expected that such practical applications as the development of artificial “eyes” for the blind may emerge from these man–machine analogies . Computer-based machines that can discriminate among visual patterns already have been constructed, such as those that “read” the code numbers on bank checks.

3.1 The Perceptual Process

• How do differences in perception affect employee behavior and performance?

By perception , we mean the process by which one screens, selects, organizes, and interprets stimuli to give them meaning. 1 It is a process of making sense out of the environment in order to make an appropriate behavioral response. Perception does not necessarily lead to an accurate portrait of the environment, but rather to a unique portrait, influenced by the needs, desires, values, and disposition of the perceiver. As described by Kretch and associates, 2 an individual’s perception of a given situation is not a photographic representation of the physical world; it is a partial, personal construction in which certain objects, selected by the individual for a major role, are perceived in an individual manner. Every perceiver is, as it were, to some degree a nonrepresentational artist, painting a picture of the world that expresses an individual view of reality.

The multitude of objects that vie for attention are first selected or screened by individuals. This process is called perceptual selectivity . Certain of these objects catch our attention, while others do not. Once individuals notice a particular object, they then attempt to make sense out of it by organizing or categorizing it according to their unique frame of reference and their needs. This second process is termed perceptual organization . When meaning has been attached to an object, individuals are in a position to determine an appropriate response or reaction to it. Hence, if we clearly recognize and understand we are in danger from a falling rock or a car, we can quickly move out of the way.

Because of the importance of perceptual selectivity for understanding the perception of work situations, we will examine this concept in some detail before considering the topic of social perception.

Perceptual Selectivity: Seeing What We See

As noted above, perceptual selectivity refers to the process by which individuals select objects in the environment for attention. Without this ability to focus on one or a few stimuli instead of the hundreds constantly surrounding us, we would be unable to process all the information necessary to initiate behavior. In essence, perceptual selectivity works as follows (see Exhibit 3.2 ). The individual is first exposed to an object or stimulus—a loud noise, a new car, a tall building, another person, and so on. Next, the individual focuses attention on this one object or stimulus, as opposed to others, and concentrates his efforts on understanding or comprehending the stimulus. For example, while conducting a factory tour, two managers came across a piece of machinery. One manager’s attention focused on the stopped machine; the other manager focused on the worker who was trying to fix it. Both managers simultaneously asked the worker a question. The first manager asked why the machine was stopped, and the second manager asked if the employee thought that he could fix it. Both managers were presented with the same situation, but they noticed different aspects. This example illustrates that once attention has been directed, individuals are more likely to retain an image of the object or stimulus in their memory and to select an appropriate response to the stimulus. These various influences on selective attention can be divided into external influences and internal (personal) influences (see Exhibit 3.3 ).

External Influences on Selective Attention

External influences consist of the characteristics of the observed object or person that activate the senses. Most external influences affect selective attention because of either their physical properties or their dynamic properties.

Physical Properties. The physical properties of the objects themselves often affect which objects receive attention by the perceiver. Emphasis here is on the unique, different, and out of the ordinary. A particularly important physical property is size . Generally, larger objects receive more attention than smaller ones. Advertising companies use the largest signs and billboards allowed to capture the perceiver’s attention. However, when most of the surrounding objects are large, a small object against a field of large objects may receive more attention. In either case, size represents an important variable in perception. Moreover, brighter, louder, and more colorful objects tend to attract more attention than objects of less intensity . For example, when a factory foreman yells an order at his subordinates, it will probably receive more notice (although it may not receive the desired response) from workers. It must be remembered here, however, that intensity heightens attention only when compared to other comparable stimuli. If the foreman always yells, employees may stop paying much attention to the yelling. Objects that contrast strongly with the background against which they are observed tend to receive more attention than less-contrasting objects. An example of the contrast principle can be seen in the use of plant and highway safety signs. A terse message such as “Danger” is lettered in black against a yellow or orange background. A final physical characteristic that can heighten perceptual awareness is the novelty or unfamiliarity of the object. Specifically, the unique or unexpected seen in a familiar setting (an executive of a conservative company who comes to work in Bermuda shorts) or the familiar seen in an incongruous setting (someone in church holding a can of beer) will receive attention.

Dynamic Properties. The second set of external influences on selective attention are those that either change over time or derive their uniqueness from the order in which they are presented. The most obvious dynamic property is motion . We tend to pay attention to objects that move against a relatively static background. This principle has long been recognized by advertisers, who often use signs with moving lights or moving objects to attract attention. In an organizational setting, a clear example is a rate-buster, who shows up his colleagues by working substantially faster, attracting more attention.

Another principle basic to advertising is repetition of a message or image. Work instructions that are repeated tend to be received better, particularly when they concern a dull or boring task on which it is difficult to concentrate. This process is particularly effective in the area of plant safety. Most industrial accidents occur because of careless mistakes during monotonous activities. Repeating safety rules and procedures can often help keep workers alert to the possibilities of accidents.

Personal Influences on Selective Attention

In addition to a variety of external factors, several important personal factors are also capable of influencing the extent to which an individual pays attention to a particular stimulus or object in the environment. The two most important personal influences on perceptual readiness are response salience and response disposition .

Response Salience. This is a tendency to focus on objects that relate to our immediate needs or wants. Response salience in the work environment is easily identified. A worker who is tired from many hours of work may be acutely sensitive to the number of hours or minutes until quitting time. Employees negotiating a new contract may know to the penny the hourly wage of workers doing similar jobs across town. Managers with a high need to achieve may be sensitive to opportunities for work achievement, success, and promotion. Finally, female managers may be more sensitive than many male managers to condescending male attitudes toward women. Response salience, in turn, can distort our view of our surroundings. For example, as Ruch notes:

“Time spent on monotonous work is usually overestimated. Time spent in interesting work is usually underestimated. . . . Judgment of time is related to feelings of success or failure. Subjects who are experiencing failure judge a given interval as longer than do subjects who are experiencing success. A given interval of time is also estimated as longer by subjects trying to get through a task in order to reach a desired goal than by subjects working without such motivation.” 3

Response Disposition. Whereas response salience deals with immediate needs and concerns, response disposition is the tendency to recognize familiar objects more quickly than unfamiliar ones. The notion of response disposition carries with it a clear recognition of the importance of past learning on what we perceive in the present. For instance, in one study, a group of individuals was presented with a set of playing cards with the colors and symbols reversed—that is, hearts and diamonds were printed in black, and spades and clubs in red. Surprisingly, when subjects were presented with these cards for brief time periods, individuals consistently described the cards as they expected them to be (red hearts and diamonds, black spades and clubs) instead of as they really were. They were predisposed to see things as they always had been in the past. 4

Thus, the basic perceptual process is in reality a fairly complicated one. Several factors, including our own personal makeup and the environment, influence how we interpret and respond to the events we focus on. Although the process itself may seem somewhat complicated, it in fact represents a shorthand to guide us in our everyday behavior. That is, without perceptual selectivity we would be immobilized by the millions of stimuli competing for our attention and action. The perceptual process allows us to focus our attention on the more salient events or objects and, in addition, allows us to categorize such events or objects so that they fit into our own conceptual map of the environment.

Expanding Around the Globe

Which car would you buy.

When General Motors teamed up with Toyota to form California-based New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI), they had a great idea. NUMMI would manufacture not only the popular Toyota Corolla but would also make a GM car called the Geo Prizm. Both cars would be essentially identical except for minor styling differences. Economies of scale and high quality would benefit the sales of both cars. Unfortunately, General Motors forgot one thing. The North American consumer holds a higher opinion of Japanese-built cars than American-made ones. As a result, from the start of the joint venture, Corollas have sold rapidly, while sales of Geo Prizms have languished.

With hindsight, it is easy to explain what happened in terms of perceptual differences. That is, the typical consumer simply perceived the Corolla to be of higher quality (and perhaps higher status) and bought accordingly. Not only was the Prizm seen more skeptically by consumers, but General Motors’ insistence on a whole new name for the product left many buyers unfamiliar with just what they were buying. Perception was that main reason for lagging sales; however, the paint job on the Prizm was viewed as being among the worst ever. As a result, General Motors lost $80 million on the Prizm in its first year of sales. Meanwhile, demand for the Corolla exceeded supply.

The final irony here is that no two cars could be any more alike than the Prizm and the Corolla. They are built on the same assembly line by the same workers to the same design specifications. They are, in fact, the same car. The only difference is in how the consumers perceive the two cars—and these perceptions obviously are radically different.

Over time, however, perceptions did change. While there was nothing unique about the Prizm, the vehicle managed to sell pretty well for the automaker and carried on well into the 2000s. The Prizm was also the base for the Pontiac Vibe, which was based on the Corolla platform as well, and this is one of the few collaborations that worked really well.

Sources: C. Eitreim, “10 Odd Automotive Brand Collaborations (And 15 That Worked),” Car Culture , January 19, 2019; R. Hof, “This Team-Up Has It All—Except Sales,” Business Week, August 14, 1989, p. 35; C. Eitreim, “15 GM Cars With The Worst Factory Paint Jobs (And 5 That'll Last Forever),” Motor Hub , November 8, 2018.

Social Perception in Organizations

Up to this point, we have focused on an examination of basic perceptual processes—how we see objects or attend to stimuli. Based on this discussion, we are now ready to examine a special case of the perceptual process— social perception as it relates to the workplace. Social perception consists of those processes by which we perceive other people. 5 Particular emphasis in the study of social perception is placed on how we interpret other people, how we categorize them, and how we form impressions of them.

Clearly, social perception is far more complex than the perception of inanimate objects such as tables, chairs, signs, and buildings. This is true for at least two reasons. First, people are obviously far more complex and dynamic than tables and chairs. More-careful attention must be paid in perceiving them so as not to miss important details. Second, an accurate perception of others is usually far more important to us personally than are our perceptions of inanimate objects. The consequences of misperceiving people are great. Failure to accurately perceive the location of a desk in a large room may mean we bump into it by mistake. Failure to perceive accurately the hierarchical status of someone and how the person cares about this status difference might lead you to inappropriately address the person by their first name or use slang in their presence and thereby significantly hurt your chances for promotion if that person is involved in such decisions. Consequently, social perception in the work situation deserves special attention.

We will concentrate now on the three major influences on social perception: the characteristics of (1) the person being perceived, (2) the particular situation, and (3) the perceiver. When taken together, these influences are the dimensions of the environment in which we view other people. It is important for students of management to understand the way in which they interact (see Exhibit 3.4 ).

The way in which we are evaluated in social situations is greatly influenced by our own unique sets of personal characteristics. That is, our dress, talk, and gestures determine the kind of impressions people form of us. In particular, four categories of personal characteristics can be identified: (1) physical appearance, (2) verbal communication, (3) nonverbal communication, and (4) ascribed attributes.

Physical Appearance. A variety of physical attributes influence our overall image. These include many of the obvious demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, height, and weight. A study by Mason found that most people agree on the physical attributes of a leader (i.e., what leaders should look like), even though these attributes were not found to be consistently held by actual leaders. However, when we see a person who appears to be assertive, goal-oriented, confident, and articulate, we infer that this person is a natural leader. 6 Another example of the powerful influence of physical appearance on perception is clothing. People dressed in business suits are generally thought to be professionals, whereas people dressed in work clothes are assumed to be lower-level employees.

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. What we say to others—as well as how we say it—can influence the impressions others form of us. Several aspects of verbal communication can be noted. First, the precision with which one uses language can influence impressions about cultural sophistication or education. An accent provides clues about a person’s geographic and social background. The tone of voice used provides clues about a speaker’s state of mind. Finally, the topics people choose to converse about provide clues about them.

Impressions are also influenced by nonverbal communication—how people behave. For instance, facial expressions often serve as clues in forming impressions of others. People who consistently smile are often thought to have positive attitudes. 7 A whole field of study that has recently emerged is body language , the way in which people express their inner feelings subconsciously through physical actions: sitting up straight versus being relaxed, looking people straight in the eye versus looking away from people. These forms of expressive behavior provide information to the perceiver concerning how approachable others are, how self-confident they are, or how sociable they are.

Ascribed Attributes. Finally, we often ascribe certain attributes to a person before or at the beginning of an encounter; these attributes can influence how we perceive that person. Three ascribed attributes are status, occupation, and personal characteristics. We ascribe status to someone when we are told that the person is an executive, holds the greatest sales record, or has in some way achieved unusual fame or wealth. Research has consistently shown that people attribute different motives to people they believe to be high or low in status, even when these people behave in an identical fashion. 8 For instance, high-status people are seen as having greater control over their behavior and as being more self-confident and competent; they are given greater influence in group decisions than low-status people. Moreover, high-status people are generally better liked than low-status people. Occupations also play an important part in how we perceive people. Describing people as salespersons, accountants, teamsters, or research scientists conjures up distinct pictures of these various people before any firsthand encounters. In fact, these pictures may even determine whether there can be an encounter.

Characteristics of the Situation

The second major influence on how we perceive others is the situation in which the perceptual process occurs. Two situational influences can be identified: (1) the organization and the employee’s place in it, and (2) the location of the event.

Organizational Role. An employee’s place in the organizational hierarchy can also influence his perceptions. A classic study of managers by Dearborn and Simon emphasizes this point. In this study, executives from various departments (accounting, sales, production) were asked to read a detailed and factual case about a steel company. 9 Next, each executive was asked to identify the major problem a new president of the company should address. The findings showed clearly that the executives’ perceptions of the most important problems in the company were influenced by the departments in which they worked. Sales executives saw sales as the biggest problem, whereas production executives cited production issues. Industrial relations and public relations executives identified human relations as the primary problem in need of attention.

In addition to perceptual differences emerging horizontally across departments, such differences can also be found when we move vertically up or down the hierarchy. The most obvious difference here is seen between managers and unions, where the former see profits, production, and sales as vital areas of concern for the company whereas the latter place much greater emphasis on wages, working conditions, and job security. Indeed, our views of managers and workers are clearly influenced by the group to which we belong. The positions we occupy in organizations can easily color how we view our work world and those in it. Consider the results of a classic study of perceptual differences between superiors and subordinates. 10 Both groups were asked how often the supervisor gave various forms of feedback to the employees. The results, shown in Table 3.1 , demonstrate striking differences based on one’s location in the organizational hierarchy.

Location of Event. Finally, how we interpret events is also influenced by where the event occurs. Behaviors that may be appropriate at home, such as taking off one’s shoes, may be inappropriate in the office. Acceptable customs vary from country to country. For instance, assertiveness may be a desirable trait for a sales representative in the United States, but it may be seen as being brash or coarse in Japan or China. Hence, the context in which the perceptual activity takes place is important.

Characteristics of the Perceiver

The third major influence on social perception is the personality and viewpoint of the perceiver. Several characteristics unique to our personalities can affect how we see others. These include (1) self-concept, (2) cognitive structure, (3) response salience, and (4) previous experience with the individual. 11

Self-Concept. Our self-concept represents a major influence on how we perceive others. This influence is manifested in several ways. First, when we understand ourselves (i.e., can accurately describe our own personal characteristics), we are better able to perceive others accurately. Second, when we accept ourselves (i.e., have a positive self-image), we are more likely to see favorable characteristics in others. Studies have shown that if we accept ourselves as we are, we broaden our view of others and are more likely to view people uncritically. Conversely, less secure people often find faults in others. Third, our own personal characteristics influence the characteristics we notice in others. For instance, people with authoritarian tendencies tend to view others in terms of power, whereas secure people tend to see others as warm rather than cold. 12 From a management standpoint, these findings emphasize how important it is for administrators to understand themselves; they also provide justification for the human relations training programs that are popular in many organizations today.

Cognitive Structure. Our cognitive structures also influence how we view people. People describe each other differently. Some use physical characteristics such as tall or short, whereas others use central descriptions such as deceitful, forceful, or meek. Still others have more complex cognitive structures and use multiple traits in their descriptions of others; hence, a person may be described as being aggressive, honest, friendly, and hardworking. (See the discussion in Individual and Cultural Differences on cognitive complexity.) Ostensibly, the greater our cognitive complexity—our ability to differentiate between people using multiple criteria—the more accurate our perception of others. People who tend to make more complex assessments of others also tend to be more positive in their appraisals. 13 Research in this area highlights the importance of selecting managers who exhibit high degrees of cognitive complexity. These individuals should form more accurate perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of their subordinates and should be able to capitalize on their strengths while ignoring or working to overcome their weaknesses.

Response Salience. This refers to our sensitivity to objects in the environment as influenced by our particular needs or desires. Response salience can play an important role in social perception because we tend to see what we want to see. A company personnel manager who has a bias against women, minorities, or handicapped persons would tend to be adversely sensitive to them during an employment interview. This focus may cause the manager to look for other potentially negative traits in the candidate to confirm his biases. The influence of positive arbitrary biases is called the halo effect , whereas the influence of negative biases is often called the horn effect . Another personnel manager without these biases would be much less inclined to be influenced by these characteristics when viewing prospective job candidates.

Previous Experience with the Individual. Our previous experiences with others often will influence the way in which we view their current behavior. When an employee has consistently received poor performance evaluations, a marked improvement in performance may go unnoticed because the supervisor continues to think of the individual as a poor performer. Similarly, employees who begin their careers with several successes develop a reputation as fast-track individuals and may continue to rise in the organization long after their performance has leveled off or even declined. The impact of previous experience on present perceptions should be respected and studied by students of management. For instance, when a previously poor performer earnestly tries to perform better, it is important for this improvement to be recognized early and properly rewarded. Otherwise, employees may give up, feeling that nothing they do will make any difference.

Together, these factors determine the impressions we form of others (see Exhibit 3.4 ). With these impressions, we make conscious and unconscious decisions about how we intend to behave toward people. Our behavior toward others, in turn, influences the way they regard us. Consequently, the importance of understanding the perceptual process, as well as factors that contribute to it, is apparent for managers. A better understanding of ourselves and careful attention to others leads to more accurate perceptions and more appropriate actions.

Concept Check

• How can you understand what makes up an individual’s personality?
• How does the content of the situation affect the perception of the perceiver?
• What are the characteristics that the perceiver can have on interpreting personality?

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: J. Stewart Black, David S. Bright
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Organizational Behavior
• Publication date: Jun 5, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/3-1-the-perceptual-process

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Perception?

Recognizing Environmental Stimuli Through the Five Senses

Types of Perception

• How It Works

Perception Process

• Influential Factors
• Improvement Tips
• Potential Pitfalls

History of Perception

Perception refers to our sensory experience of the world. It is the process of using our senses to become aware of objects, relationships, and events. It is through this experience that we gain information about the environment around us.

Perception relies on the cognitive functions we use to process information, such as utilizing memory to recognize the face of a friend or detect a familiar scent. Through the perception process, we are able to both identify and respond to environmental stimuli.

Perception includes the five senses: touch, sight, sound, smell , and taste . It also includes what is known as proprioception , which is a set of senses that enable us to detect changes in body position and movement.

Many stimuli surround us at any given moment. Perception acts as a filter that allows us to exist within and interpret the world without becoming overwhelmed by this abundance of stimuli.

The different senses often separate the types of perception. These include visual, scent, touch, sound, and taste perception. We perceive our environment using each of these, often simultaneously.

There are also different types of perception in psychology, including:

• Person perception refers to the ability to identify and use social cues about people and relationships.
• Social perception is how we perceive certain societies and can be affected by things such as stereotypes and generalizations.

Another type of perception is selective perception. This involves paying attention to some parts of our environment while ignoring others.

The different types of perception allow us to experience our environment and interact with it in ways that are both appropriate and meaningful.

How Perception Works

Through perception, we become more aware of (and can respond to) our environment. We use perception in communication to identify how our loved ones may feel. We use perception in behavior to decide what we think about individuals and groups.

We perceive things continuously, even though we don't typically spend a great deal of time thinking about them. For example, the light that falls on our eye's retinas transforms into a visual image unconsciously and automatically. Subtle changes in pressure against our skin, allowing us to feel objects, also occur without a single thought.

Mindful Moment

Need a breather? Take this free 9-minute meditation focused on awakening your senses —or choose from our guided meditation library to find another one that will help you feel your best.

To better understand how we become aware of and respond to stimuli in the world around us, it can be helpful to look at the perception process. This varies somewhat for every sense.

In regard to our sense of sight, the perception process looks like this:

• Environmental stimulus: The world is full of stimuli that can attract attention. Environmental stimulus is everything in our surroundings that has the potential to be perceived.
• Attended stimulus: The attended stimulus is the specific object in the environment on which our attention is focused.
• Image on the retina: This part of the perception process involves light passing through the cornea and pupil onto the lens of the eye. The cornea helps focus the light as it enters, and the iris controls the size of the pupils to determine how much light to let in. The cornea and lens act together to project an inverted image onto the retina.
• Transduction: The image on the retina is then transformed into electrical signals through a process known as transduction. This allows the visual messages to be transmitted to the brain to be interpreted.
• Neural processing: After transduction, the electrical signals undergo neural processing. The path followed by a particular signal depends on what type of signal it is (for example, an auditory signal or a visual signal).
• Perception: In this step of the perception process, you perceive the stimulus object in the environment. It is at this point that you become consciously aware of the stimulus.
• Recognition: Perception doesn't just involve becoming consciously aware of the stimuli. It is also necessary for the brain to categorize and interpret what you are sensing. This next step, known as recognition, is the ability to interpret and give meaning to the object.
• Action: The action phase of the perception process involves some type of motor activity that occurs in response to the perceived stimulus. This might involve a significant action, like running toward a person in distress. It can also include doing something as subtle as blinking your eyes in response to a puff of dust blowing through the air.

Think of all the things you perceive on a daily basis. At any given moment, you might see familiar objects, feel a person's touch against your skin, smell the aroma of a home-cooked meal, or hear the sound of music playing in your neighbor's apartment. All of these help make up your conscious experience and allow you to interact with the people and objects around you.

Recap of the Perception Process

• Environmental stimulus
• Attended stimulus
• Image on the retina
• Transduction
• Neural processing
• Recognition

Factors Influencing Perception

What makes perception somewhat complex is that we don't all perceive things the same way. One person may perceive a dog jumping on them as a threat, while another person may perceive this action as the pup just being excited to see them.

Our perceptions of people and things are shaped by our prior experiences, our interests, and how carefully we process information. This can cause one person to perceive the exact same person or situation differently than someone else.

Perception can also be affected by our personality. For instance, research has found that four of the Big 5 personality traits —openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism—can impact our perception of organizational justice.

Conversely, our perceptions can also affect our personality. If you perceive that your boss is treating you unfairly, for example, you may show traits related to anger or frustration. If you perceive your spouse to be loving and caring, you may show similar traits in return.

Are Perception and Attitude the Same?

While they are similar, perception and attitude are two different things. Perception is how we interpret the world around us, while our attitudes (our emotions, beliefs, and behaviors) can impact these perceptions.

Tips to Improve Perception

If you want to improve your perception skills, there are some things that you can do. Actions you can take that may help you perceive more in the world around you—or at least focus on the things that are important—include:

• Pay attention. Actively notice the world around you, using all your senses. What do you see, hear, taste, smell, or touch? Using your sense of proprioception, notice the movements of your arms and legs or your changes in body position.
• Make meaning of what you perceive. The recognition stage of the perception process is essential since it allows you to make sense of the world around you. You place objects in meaningful categories so you can understand and react appropriately.
• Take action. The final step of the perception process involves taking some sort of action in response to your environmental stimulus. This could involve a variety of actions, such as stopping to smell the flower you see on the side of the road and incorporating more of your senses into your experiences.

Potential Pitfalls of Perception

The perception process does not always go smoothly, and there are a number of things that may interfere with our ability to interpret and respond to our environment. One is having a disorder that impacts perception.

Perceptual disorders are cognitive conditions marked by an impaired ability to perceive objects or concepts. Some disorders that may affect perception include:

• Spatial neglect syndromes , which involve not attending to stimuli on one side of the body
• Prosopagnosia , also called face blindness, is a disorder that makes it difficult to recognize faces
• Aphantasia , a condition characterized by an inability to visualize things in your mind
• Schizophrenia , a mental health condition that is marked by abnormal perceptions of reality

Some of these conditions may be influenced by genetics, while others result from stroke or brain injury.

Certain factors can also negatively affect perception. For instance, one study found that when people viewed images of others, they perceived individuals with nasal deformities as having less satisfactory personality traits. So, factors such as this can potentially affect personality perception in others.

Interest in perception dates back to ancient Greek philosophers who were interested in how people know the world and gain understanding. As psychology emerged as a science separate from philosophy, researchers became interested in understanding how different aspects of perception worked—particularly the perception of color.

In addition to understanding basic physiological processes, psychologists were also interested in understanding how the mind interprets and organizes these perceptions.

Gestalt psychologists proposed a holistic approach, suggesting that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  Cognitive psychologists have also worked to understand how motivations and expectations can play a role in the process of perception.

As time progresses, researchers continue to investigate perception on the neural level. They also look at how injury, conditions, and substances might affect perception.

American Psychological Association. Perception .

University of Minnesota. 3.4 Perception . Organizational Behavior .

Jhangiani R, Tarry H. 5.4 Individual differences in person perception . Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International H5P Edition . Published online January 26, 2022.

Aggarwal A, Nobi K, Mittal A, Rastogi S. Does personality affect the individual's perceptions of organizational justice? The mediating role of organizational politics . Benchmark Int J . 2022;29(3):997-1026. doi:10.1108/BIJ-08-2020-0414

Saylor Academy. Human relations: Perception's effect . Human Relations .

ICFAI Business School. Perception and attitude (ethics) . Personal Effectiveness Management Course .

King DJ, Hodgekins J, Chouinard PA, Chouinard VA, Sperandio I. A review of abnormalities in the perception of visual illusions in schizophrenia .  Psychon Bull Rev . 2017;24(3):734‐751. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1168-5

van Schijndel O, Tasman AJ, Listschel R. The nose influences visual and personality perception . Facial Plast Surg . 2015;31(05):439-445. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1565009

Goldstein E. Sensation and Perception . Thomson Wadsworth; 2010.

Yantis S. Sensation and Perception . Worth Publishers; 2014.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Free Case Studies
• Business Essays

Write My Case Study

Buy Case Study

Case Study Help

• Case Study For Sale
• Case Study Services
• Hire Writer

Case Study on Perception

Perception case study:.

Perception is the process, which forms the subjective opinion about the world around. Perception is a psychological process or a reflection, reaction to the object from the surrounding world with the help of the sense organs. From the biological point of view perception is a complicated process, which is based on the several stages.

First of all the sense organs get the information about the object (its color, form, shape, smell, temperature, etc.), transform and analyze it and after that due to the work of the brains a human being receives the impression about the whole object. Organs of sense perception help to receive a full image of an object and due to their existence our life is more colorful and rich on senses. Unfortunately, some people have problems with the certain sense organs and are not able to analyze information of the certain type. For example, some people have problems with smell; as a result they are not able to smell their food, various objects around.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically For You For Only $13.90/page!

Moreover, absence of smell deprives a person from the ability of tasting food, because the human nose and the tongue are closely connected. On the other hand, if there is a problem with the one sense organ, the other sense organs are developed better, than of other people. For example, if a person has poor eyesight, she will definitely hear the noises better than other people, because blindness is often compensated by sharp hearing and sensitive fingers.Perception is an important topic for research, because due to perception we can collect much information about the world around. For example, one can easily detect a poisonous berry or a drink just smelling it; so perception has always played an important role for the life of people.

A well-composed perception case study is a scrupulous investigation of a certain narrow topic on perception on the particular example from the real life. I one wants to write a good case study, he should research the topic well, collect enough trustworthy data, analyze it, find the cause of the problem and its consequences, provide the reader with the poor and strong sides on the topic and conclude the paper professionally.In the end a student is expected to provide the teacher with the list of the effective methods which can solve the problem of the case study well. This part of paper writing is quite problematic, because inexperienced students need a t a least a good free example case study on perception in organization to be able to build a proper structure of the paper and to insert certain methods there. With the good assistance of a perfectly-made free sample case study on perception one will manage to succeed in writing and complete the case study effectively.

Related posts:

• Case Study Perception
• Case Study: Perception of Entrepreneurial Orientation
• The Relationship Between Extraversion and Time Perception: a Correlational Study
• Personal Perception of Organized Crime
• A study on how extra-sensory perception belief affects repetition avoidance
• Students Perception About Ojt
• Visual Perception

Quick Links

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Testimonials

Our Services

Case Study Writing Services

Case Studies For Sale

Our Company

Welcome to the world of case studies that can bring you high grades! Here, at ACaseStudy.com, we deliver professionally written papers, and the best grades for you from your professors are guaranteed!

[email protected] 804-506-0782 350 5th Ave, New York, NY 10118, USA

Acasestudy.com © 2007-2019 All rights reserved.

Hi! I'm Anna

Would you like to get a custom case study? How about receiving a customized one?

Haven't Found The Case Study You Want?

For Only $13.90/page

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Rethinking the senses and their interactions: the case for sensory pluralism

I argue for sensory pluralism. This is the view that there are many forms of sensory interaction and unity, and no single category that classifies them all. In other words, sensory interactions do not form a single natural kind. This view suggests that how we classify sensory systems (and the experiences they generate) partly depends on our explanatory purposes. I begin with a detailed discussion of the issue as it arises for our understanding of thermal perception, followed by a general account and defense of sensory pluralism.

1. Introduction

Start with two seemingly true statements: (i) We have many senses; (ii) They often interact.

These statements are now widely acknowledged and incorporated into recent work on perception, but they are also in deep tension with one another. Once we allow that the sensory modalities interact, and do so pervasively at multiple levels of sensory processing, with effects at all levels of our psychology (subpersonal, behavioral, and phenomenal), then it becomes difficult to make sense of what, exactly, these individual senses might be. Vision is less a single coherent modality than a complex collection of interacting subsystems. And that collection has features different in kind from those found in the auditory, vestibular, and nociceptive systems (of course, there are many similarities too). Indeed, it can become difficult to maintain the idea that we can have anything like a unified conception of sensory modalities and their interactions.

I start with a detailed discussion of human thermoreception, using it as a case study for the sort of tensions I describe above. I then discuss the general implications of this example, and propose a robust theoretical framework for addressing this tension. My claim is that we should abandon any single theoretical account of sensory interaction, and adopt a view according to which sensory systems and their interactions are classified in part by our explanatory purposes. The upshot of this proposal is that it allows us to fully acknowledge the deep interactions between sensory subsystems without thereby giving up entirely on the very idea of separate sensory modalities. The main target of my view is any form of sensory monism that assumes there will be a single, authoritative, and context free account of what it is to be a sensory modality and for an interaction between them to be “multisensory” or “multimodal.” On such a monist view, there should be a single determinate answer to the question of whether vestibular awareness or pain or any other putative sense counts as a sensory modality. I believe such a view is implausible and deeply problematic, and in what follows I offer a substantive alternative account.

2. Case study: thermal perception

We have a sensory system—commonly called the thermoreceptive system—that involves a series of distinct receptor populations in the skin (Schepers and Ringkamp, 2010 ). There are several different kinds of receptors involved, including thinly myelinated Aδ afferents that have receptive fields tuned to cooling and unmeylinated C afferents that code for both warming and cooling 1 . These various receptor populations systematically combine with other cutaneous systems (like those that code for pressure, vibration, and shape) to inform us about thermal properties in the distal environment (Jones and Lederman, 2006 ; Lumpkin and Caterina, 2007 ). They thus seem to be a crucial component of haptic touch (Fulkerson, 2014b ). They also play an important role in our bodily awareness and the regulation of body temperature (Hammel and Pierce, 2002 ; Jones and Lederman, 2006 ), and so seem also to belong to our general systems of bodily awareness (which includes proprioception, kinesthesis, and our body schema). And finally, thermoreceptors also play an important role in the nociceptive system, informing us of bodily damage caused by extreme hot and cold stimuli 2 .

How should we classify this thermoreceptor system? Is it even one thing, given its many different afferent populations with distinct receptive fields and activation profiles? Maybe thermoreception itself is multisensory? We can also ask whether it is a part of touch. Should it be examined and investigated along with the other constituents of haptic awareness? Or are these thermoreceptors really part of the nociceptive system? Exposure to extreme heat and cold are, after all, among our most intense causes of pain. Then again, perhaps it is part of our general system for bodily awareness, since such thermoreceptors play such an important role in the regulation of a comfortable bodily state. In each of these cases, we can ask whether that makes touch, pain, and bodily awareness essentially multisensory 3 .

Similarly, we might wonder whether thermoreception is its own independent sensory modality (multisensory or not). Is it perceptual , or do we only become informed of distal thermal properties indirectly, through inference from our bodily thermal state? 4 Each of these positions has been defended (sometimes tacitly) in the literature (Martin, 1992 ; Schepers and Ringkamp, 2010 ; Gray, 2012 ). We are unlikely to make much progress on these claims, I believe, until we realize that there really is no such thing as the thermoreceptive system. The starting assumption that there is such a single system leads, I shall argue, to insurmountable theoretical and practical difficulties. Instead of a single thermalreceptive system, I believe that we have a complex series of receptors and processing units that perform multiple overlapping functions, and thus there are many, equally good ways of categorizing these various systems (see Figure ​ Figure1). 1 ). On this view, relative to one schema (its role in detecting and co-assigning features to distal objects), the thermoreceptive system is indeed continuous with (and therefore an essential part of) the sense of touch (itself a context-sensitive construct). If we focus purely on the physiological features of thermoreception, on the other hand, we have strong reason to classify (some elements of) this system as continuous with other elements of the nociceptive system. Like those other systems, many thermal channels involve slow, unmyelinated afferent nerve fibers that project contralaterally in the spinal column (unlike discriminatory touch afferents, which are typically myelinated and project ipsilaterally, Welsh, 2001 ). According to a third schema, we can see that thermoreceptors also play an important role in the awareness and regulation of body temperature, and can be classified as part of a larger system of bodily awareness that includes proprioception, vestibular awareness, and other regulatory systems (Wenger, 1995 ).

Three ways of classifying thermoreceptors .

Let's focus on the details of this last claim, that our thermoreceptive system is part of a larger system of bodily awareness (the details here are useful as an illustration; this is not intended as an exhaustive argument about how to understand the thermal system). One useful way of categorizing sensory systems concerns whether they are outward-facing, giving us information about the external world, or body-facing, giving us information and performing functions primarily dedicated to bodily awareness and homeostatic self-maintenance. This distinction is often thought to be one between two separate systems: the exteroceptive system and the interoceptive system 5 . Exteroception, the story goes, provides us with information about the external world. It is largely informational and descriptive, giving us an evidence-like connection with the world around us. It is helpful for practical purposes (helping us find food and shelter and avoid dangers) but also for epistemic matters (helping us learn, form beliefs, and plan). Interoception, on the other hand, concerns the present state of our bodies. It is simply not in the business of directly reporting on what's going on in the external environment. Instead, this system is wholly concerned with regulating the present state of the body.

I want to focus on the defense of the view that thermoreception is interoceptive found in Craig ( 2002 ).

Craig suggests on the basis of physiological and functional connections that the thermal system should be categorized as part of the interoceptive system; that it tells us more about the present state of our bodies than it does about the external world (and that it does the latter only as a kind of secondary function). In doing so, it functions to maintain balance in our bodily system, and it does so in a way very similar to the operation of other homeostatic systems like those for hunger, thirst, and pain (see also Nakamura and Morrison, 2007 ). Here Craig ( 2002 ) describes the interoceptive system (emphasis mine):

This system is a homeostatic afferent pathway that conveys signals from small-diameter primary afferents that represent the physiological status of all tissues of the body. It projects first to autonomic and homeostatic centers in the spinal cord and brainstem, thereby providing the long-missing afferent complement of the efferent autonomic nervous system. Together with afferent activity that is relayed by the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS), it generates a direct thalamocortical representation of the state of the body in primates that is crucial for temperature, pain, itch and other somatic feelings. This anatomical organization shows that these feelings are highly resolved, sensory aspects of ongoing homeostasis that represent the physiological condition of the body itself— a distinct shift from the concept that pain and temperature are aspects of touch (p. 655).

Notice that the key evidence for lumping these elements together into a single system are physiological. On my view, as we'll see, this is a perfectly appropriate context for categorizing these constituent systems. It just isn't the only such context.

While debates continue about whether hunger, thirst, and pain should be seen as perceptual (see e.g., Aydede, 2009 ), there is little debate about whether they represent something external to the body. On nearly all views, when we feel hungry, we are learning something about the present physiological state of our bodies rather than something about the external environment.

But why think that our thermoreceptive system (or rather many of its constituent parts) can play only one role, and must be either interoceptive or exteroceptive? A much better alternative here is to go pluralist: Craig is correct that there are explanatory schemes according to which it makes most sense to classify thermoreception along with other systems of bodily awareness like hunger and thirst. As Nakamura and Morrison ( 2007 ) write:

To evoke behavioral, autonomic, somatic and hormonal responses that counteract changes in environmental temperature before they affect body core temperature, thermoregulatory command neurons in the POA [the preoptic area] need to receive feedforward signaling of environmental temperature information from skin thermoreceptors through the spinal and trigeminal dorsal horns (p. 62).

Thermoreceptors, when they project to the POA and other areas that control homeostatic control, play a critical role in regulating our overall body temperature. We can recognize this without denying that we can also directly sense thermal features of the external environment when, for instance, our cutaneous thermoreceptors are co-activated with other constituents of externally directed haptic perception, whose afferents project directly to other areas of the somatosensory cortex.

Let's consider this second role in more detail 6 . When we actively explore an object with our hands, for instance, the synchronized motor engagement and cutaneous activation generate awareness of external objects and their thermal properties (Fulkerson, 2014b ). This is, after all, how we successfully check whether the bath water is too hot, or whether the white wine is sufficiently chilled (cf. Jones and Lederman, 2006 ).

When we touch the bath water, we are attempting to determine the thermal state of the water . We reach our hand (or wrist, elbow, etc.) into the water, feel its temperature, and then decide whether or not the water is too hot. When we feel that the water is merely warm, we seem to succeed just fine in determining something about the state of the world, and not simply through some kind of explicit inference (Schepers and Ringkamp, 2010 ). Our experience is, it seems, about the state of the water. I've already suggested a functional reason for this: the activated thermoreceptors are not acting or interpreted on their own; they are temporally and spatially aligned with our exploratory actions and other cutaneous afferents in a way that unifies and enriches their informational content. This point can be supplemented by the fact that thermal properties bind to other external properties, forming complex tangible blends that involve the association of distinct distal properties. Thermal properties, for instance, turn out to be one of the essential elements in our experience of wetness (Sullivan, 1923 ; Ackerley et al., 2012 ) and material composition (Jones and Lederman, 2006 ), allowing us to differentiate an equally smooth wooden surface from a metal one. As Ackerley et al. ( 2012 , p. 73) note: “Skin afferents are rarely composed of just one sensory modality and some sensory receptors are polymodal. Furthermore, perception of the sensation usually occurs from a blend of inputs, for example, when we sense that something is wet, it is typically due to changes in both touch and temperature afferents. There is no evidence to suggest that we have wetness receptors in the skin.” While these researchers often speak of touch and temperature awareness as separate things, their own evidence suggests otherwise. Relative to a purely physiological criteria, we can categorize touch and temperature as separate modalities, but when they function reliably to bring awareness of wetness and material composition they are better categorized as part of a single haptic system 7 . This is because material composition is one of the most important elements in tactual object-recognition (Klatzky and Lederman, 2008 ). None of these would be the case if thermal reception only informed us of the state of our bodies, or if external awareness involved a separate inferential step beyond the sensory level. Indeed, this issue is not unique to thermal awareness, since touch itself involves a great variety of distinct receptor types, projection sites, and downstream behavioral and psychological effects. As McGlone et al. ( 2007 ) end their discussion:

In conclusion, a dual role for touch serving both a discriminative and an affective role in human behavior has been described. The human hand has clearly evolved to perform a wide range of exploratory and manipulative tasks, and far surpasses this function in any other primate (p. 181).

So we can see that the thermoceptive system really does play (at least) dual roles in creatures like us. In addition, of course, the use of physiological and functional criteria to categorize the various constituents of the interoceptive system brings together a diverse range of systems that cross-cut in other interesting ways. While Craig suggests that all of these interoceptive systems have affective valence, for instance, so too do most externally-directed perceptual systems. Seeing something gruesome or disgusting often brings a strong emotional reaction. Vision and audition also play an important role in proprioception and wayfinding (Campos et al., 2012 ). While several of these systems also have some homeostatic function, they also differ in many other respects. The idea that there is a single “interoceptive system” is itself a useful explanatory context. We should not at all be surprised that there will be equally useful alternative ways of categorizing these systems.

Contrast Craig's view with that of Akins ( 1996 ). Like Craig, she denies that the senses are always in the business of veridically reporting on conditions external to an organism 8 .

She describes the traditional naturalistic account of senses, one that she will go on to deny, as follows: “The senses show the brain, otherwise blind, how things stand “out there,” both in the external world and in its own distal body” (p. 342). Later, she adds: “On the traditional picture, then, the senses, using a system of signals that capture the structure of a domain of external properties, tell the brain, without exaggeration or omission, “what is where” (p. 344).

This traditional (though still prevalent) view can motivate the idea that the senses have a single, hard-wired role to play (i.e., reporting external conditions directly to the brain). Conveniently for my purposes, she argues against this view with a detailed consideration of the peripheral thermoreceptive system. On the traditional view, “The receptors … must react with a unique signal, one that correlates with a particular temperature state.” (p. 342). Of course, this is not how peripheral thermoreceptors function. They have highly context sensitive and variable response rates that depend on the present state of the skin and embedded receptors, the context of activation, and the homeostatic needs of the organism (consider as Akins does the contrasting experiences generated by placing a warmed and a chilled hand in a neutral glass of water).

These facts lead Akins to suggest that sensory systems are “narcissistic”: while they sometimes convey information about the external environment, they always do so in a way that reflects first and foremost the needs and priorities of the organism. These needs, in turn, are often variable and highly context-sensitive. The senses involve many interacting parts, playing many different and important roles, but always for the organism . This perspective supports Craig's insights about the homeostatic and internally-directed nature of interoceptive thermal responses. Interoceptive contents, after all, will almost by definition be narcissistic. However, once the peripheral transducers are seen correctly as the initial components of much larger downstream neural networks subserving a variety of distinct psychological and behavioral activities, we can more easily see how the several channels involved in thermoreception can, in different contexts, and when connected with different downstream systems, be (literally) a part of several distinct sensory systems 9 .

The upshot then is not that Craig is wrong to apply the interoceptive category to some sensory systems. It's that he can be correct that there is an interesting and important way of connecting these systems, without excluding alternative ways of categorizing them. On the moderate pluralist view I will go on to defend, we can allow that thermal perception plays multiple different roles. Indeed, we can think of this system as a single system only by applying such a scheme of classification. There are a variety of distinct overlapping systems involved in thermoreception, and there are thus many different ways of classifying them. There is, on my view, both an internal and an externally-directed role. Thermoreception really is an important part of touch. It really is a part of our pain system. It really is part of bodily awareness. Which aspect we focus on depends on which aspects of the system we're interested in, and our explanatory purposes.

One thing is clear: even if one of the key functions of thermal perception is to provide information about the present state of our bodies, it does not follow that this is the only thing that thermal perception does. Or at least, it does not follow that there aren't multiple variants of thermal systems, all making use of the very same initial populations of peripheral thermoreceptors. One provides bodily information, another is connected with our haptic exploratory system, another plays a critical role in our pain experiences. Given this possibility, which I take to be an actuality, one should not make any inferences about perception generally on the basis of one function of thermal experience.

The upshot for us is that Craig highlights only one of the key functions of the thermal system, and his work allows us to see how (parts of) the same system can serve a variety of distinct roles. Some forms of thermal awareness only deliver awareness of the present state of our bodies; others inform us of the thermal properties of objects in our immediate environment. The real nature of thermoreception depends on what we are trying to explain, and on which associated features of the systems we are categorizing.

Thermoreception represents a kind of ideal case study here: it is a complex system, but well enough understood that we can use it to see exactly how plausible and powerful the moderate pluralist view can be. Now I will fill in the details of the sort of view I have in mind, starting with some essential background.

3. The importance of multisensory interaction

Recall the statements that began this paper: (i) We have many senses; (ii) They often interact.

These two statements were for a long time discounted by those in the cognitive sciences. Many had what O'Callaghan ( 2007 , 2008 ) has called a “visuocentric” conception of perceptual experience. Visual experience was discussed to the exclusion of other modalities, and it was tacitly assumed that the conclusions reached for visual experiences would translate smoothly over to the other senses.

Recent work in cognitive science has accepted a more nuanced, multisensory conception of perceptual experience 10 . Empirically informed philosophy of mind has similarly seen a transformation in our understanding of perception 11 . Recent philosophy has seen a increase in research on other modalities 12 , sensory interactions 13 , and on the individuation of the senses 14 .

Of course, much of this philosophical work has been informed by and is directly responding to work in the various cognitive sciences exploring the deep interconnections and interactions between the senses.

Researchers have focused extensively on many different elements of sensory interaction, from cross-modal illusions, in which activations in one modality alter or suppress activations in another, to other categories of interaction like sensory facilitation, dominance, and several distinct forms of sensory integration. An increasing focus recently has been on more complex instances of sensory interaction like those occurring in affective experience, cognitive penetration, and synesthesia 15 . In all cases, researchers have extensively documented deep and pervasive interactions between sensory modalities.

These discoveries have largely undercut the “visuocentric” assumptions found in earlier research, and challenge many simplistic conceptions of sensory experience. Of course, one can still find work devoted entirely to vision (and to other individual modalities), but now such work is typically much more self-conscious about the limitations of focusing on a single modality studied in isolation. This recent shift has brought with it many important advances in our understanding of sensory interactions and the nature of perceptual consciousness, and has been a good thing for those of us trying to better understand the nature of perception.

As with any large shift in the scientific landscape, the new multisensory focus has also raised a number of important theoretical questions and posed novel challenges. I want to suggest that the move from our prior conception of separate individual senses requires more than merely investigating non-visual modalities or considering some sensory interactions. The move to a multisensory framework requires a more substantial reorientation of the theoretical landscape and of our investigative practices. At the same time, we should resist the urge to completely abandon all talk of senses and sensory systems. Instead, I will argue for an intermediate view that rejects any single, unified account of sensory modalities and their interactions, instead embracing a multitude of such accounts.

Before discussing these details, it's necessary to make two caveats. First, my focus in this paper is on the cognitive science classification of sensory systems. When I talk about vision or audition , I'm primarily interested in how we individuate and classify for the purposes of scientific explanation a particular part of our psychological biology. I am interested in the systems on the plausible assumption that it is those systems that are the constitutive and computational basis of the experiences generated 16 .

While this is a substantive assumption, the pluralist view does not depend on it (see the discussion of sensory substitution in §7.4 where this commitment is eased). It is an important advantage of my view that it allows and indeed embraces the idea that our perceptual experiences can be investigated and understood in multiple ways. So while the discussion that follows focuses almost exclusively on the sensory systems underlying our perceptual experiences rather than on their phenomenological, dynamic, or epistemic features, the view is ultimately sympathetic to many seemingly different approaches to understanding perceptual experience 17 .

Second, pluralist views have been discussed in a range of areas, especially in philosophy of biology (Kitcher, 1984 ; Mishler and Brandon, 1987 ; Ereshefsky, 1992 ; Steel, 2004 ; Cleland, 2013 ), but also in cognitive science (Dale et al., 2009 ), in general philosophy of science (Cartwright, 1999 ; Mitchell, 2002 ), aesthetics (Mag Uidhir and Magnus, 2011 ), and elsewhere. The view I defend in what follows was not initially inspired by this general move toward pluralism. Instead, it arose as a specific reaction to recent work on sensory interactions. It is not, therefore, the application of a form of pluralism defended in another domain to the sensory case. Instead, the view is motivated entirely by considerations internal to issues of explaining sensory interaction. For this reason, in what follows I will not engage in any systematic examination or comparisons between sensory pluralism and the many similar views defended in other domains, nor do I claim any special affiliation with such views.

4. Theoretical options

In this section, I want to spell out in general terms the nature of the tension forced on us by the move to a multisensory conception of perception, and consider the theoretical options.

We start with assumption (i) that we have many senses. An implicit assumption here is that these senses are more or less self-contained entities (it doesn't matter whether we think of them at this point as systems, modes of awareness, or forms of experience, etc.). One monist view that has been very influential is the claim that the senses are modular input systems (Fodor, 1983 ; Pylyshyn, 2006 ). On this view, the senses are domain specific, informationally encapsulated, hard-wired, and fast systems that function to process incoming sensory information. According to the modular account, we have a strong physiological, informational, functional, and computational distinction between sensory modalities. Vision uses different biological hardware than audition, to carry different information, for different computational and behavioral purposes 18 . The modular account is just one influential monist accounts in the literature. Its strength is supplemented by our strong intuitive sense that the senses represent very different forms of conscious awareness. What could be more clear than the difference between seeing something and hearing something? The view, and other weaker versions of monism, are systematically unable to adjust to the known facts about sensory interactions. This brings us to our second beginning statement.

That our senses interact (ii) seriously undermines any monist conception of sensory modality and interaction. We have learned that the senses interact in many interesting ways, often completely hidden from introspection. It has taken careful investigation to realize just how pervasive these influences can be. Much has been made, rightly, about the existence of cross-modal illusions (O'Callaghan, 2008 ). The McGurk effect shows that very often, what we hear is determined by what we see McGurk and MacDonald ( 1976 ); Skipper et al. ( 2007 ). The motion-bounce illusion shows that what we see is often party determined by what we hear (Sekuler et al., 1997 ). The use of brain scans and single-recording techniques has shown that many distinct areas of sensory cortex are active and engaged in the generation of experiences in single modalities (Ghazanfar and Schroeder, 2006 ). Similarly, vestibular and proprioceptive information influences activations in other modalities (Frissen et al., 2011 ; Campos et al., 2012 ). Motor movements influence cutaneous activations (Chapman, 1994 ). Thermal receptors influence pressure awareness (Jones and Lederman, 2006 ). What we see influences what we smell (Herz and von Clef, 2001 ). And on and on.

Once we realize just how pervasive and varied these interactions can be, we really start to lose grip on our what these separate senses involved are supposed to be. If they are not domain-specific, if they are not physiologically and informationally isolated, if they serve many varied and interactive functions, if the experiences they generate are fused into complexes that aren't easily decomposed or isolated in experience, then in what sense are they really distinct sensory systems at all ? They certainly aren't isolated or independent. The facts of sensory interaction make it a very difficult theoretical challenge to say exactly what the senses referred to in (i) might actually be. Depending on how we think about multisensory interactions, it can become difficult to avoid the conclusion that we really don't have separate senses after all. Vision becomes a complex of various subsystems, each connected in various ways with many other sensory subsystems and aspects of cognition. Instead, we just have a vast mess of sensory interactions (maybe at the lowest level of sensory subsystems) 19 . I am not the first to notice these challenges. Consider the recent paper by Deroy et al. ( 2014 ), where they lay out many of the challenges facing the move to a multisensory conception of perception. As they note, there seem to be at present no clear experimental methods to directly investigate multisensory awareness or to distinguish between various models of sensory interaction. This problem is compounded, I believe, by appeal to several distinct forms of sensory interaction, including distinct levels of investigation (at the neurophysiological, behavioral, and introspective levels) and different forms of interaction (cross-modal influences, sensory blends, multimodal conjunctions). They are asking the right questions:

Can we simply take the current theories and protocols used to try and understand unisensory cases and then import them into the field of multisensory research? This is the approach that we wish to question here … shifting to multisensory cases is not cost-free for the study of perceptual awareness. It introduces both methodological and theoretical pressures. (Deroy et al., 2014 , p. 3).

These pressures are compounded by the diversity of theoretical questions and experimental methods involved in these investigations. As they note later, “The recycling of unisensory protocols is unlikely to provide good ways to study multisensory awareness, if there is indeed such a thing” (Deroy et al., 2014 , p. 8). My proposal suggests that these difficulties are not simply temporary impediments in our understanding of sensory awareness; they are the inevitable result of trying to fit a heterogeneous class of interactions under a single category (either unisensory vs multisensory, full stop). Consider a simplified example to support this claim.

Suppose that we are thinking about sensory interactions as occurring fundamentally between informational systems, and we characterize these (roughly) in terms of informational processing. If we do this, we can think about the interactions of the senses as constituted by the sharing and interaction among separate informational channels (for details on how this might go, see my 2011). What happens immediately, however, is that vision and audition no longer constitute anything like a single coherent sensory modality. They are complex systems that themselves involve interactions among disparate sensory subsystems sharing information in lots of interesting ways. This happens for any other criteria we try to use to define sensory modalities 20 .

Since the interactions that operate in vision cross all kinds of boundaries, it becomes difficult to make sense of what counts as the visual system. Do those auditory processing centers that function reliably and consistently to contribute to the nature of our visual experiences count as part of vision? What about the pervasive influence of vestibular and proprioceptive systems on vision? And what do we mean by visual experiences ? Once you start taking seriously the fact that the senses interact, and you start looking at the details of these interactions, it can be incredibly difficult to make sense of what we're actually talking about. The very idea of a visual system, or of a visual experience, starts to break down. So the worries we encountered with thermoreception are not unique to that domain; they are pervasive issues that arise for all putative perceptual modalities 21 .

As I see it, there are three ways to settle respond to this tension. We can preserve and supplement the status quo through some form of sensory monism, we can reject the entire project of sensory classification and go eliminativist, or we can go pluralist 22 .

4.1. Option one

We can reject the claim that there is any tension or threat to the notion of a sensory modality posed by pervasive sensory interactions. One could, for instance, maintain the notion of the individual senses and try to explain multisensory interactions in ways that don't challenge the orthodox view of the senses. Connolly ( 2014 ) makes such an argument. In my commentary on Connolly's paper (Fulkerson, 2014a ), I called such a view sensory conservatism ; however, in this context I would describe it as a form of sensory monism . The idea is that we find some unified account that preserves the traditional notion of separate sensory modalities. Part of what this means is that we account for the wide range of sensory interactions by appeal to a criteria of sensory interaction that is independent from our criteria for being a sensory modality. We find a way to show that the traditional five (or more) senses remain of explanatory importance, and we account for multisensory interactions in a way that doesn't undermine these very kinds.

This is not an easy thing to pull off. For one, no one has yet suggested a criterion of sensory individuation that preserves the notion in the light of pervasive sensory interactions. The senses, whatever they are, cannot be domain specific, or functionally-unified, or marked in phenomenology, or physiologically specified, since what we call vision and audition and touch and olfaction and gustation have none of these features 23 .

4.2. Option two

Instead of sensory monism, one could opt for eliminativism. One could hold that the traditional senses (and their various interactions) are a kind of false construct or simplified idealization, and propose that we reject all such talk from our theorizing. Recent advances have demonstrated that our experience of the world is generated by a large number of interacting processing units. The natural way of thinking about sensory systems, on this view, is at a much finer grain than anything like modalities. Modalities are huge, messy collections of complex systems that involve mutually-interacting connections with numerous areas of the brain. They aren't natural kinds at all. On this view, to take the idea of sensory interactions seriously requires a much more radical shift in our thinking than we might have originally expected. In fact, it seems to require a rejection of (i). That is, it seems we ought to reject our intuitive notion of separate sensory modalities, and understand sensory interactions as pervasive “all the way down.” In the end, there really are no senses. This view has been defended most explicitly by Shimojo and Shams ( 2001 ), and one can see echoes of it in the work of many others (e.g., Driver and Spence, 2000 ; O'Callaghan, 2008 ).

4.3. Option three

Instead of adopting monism or eliminativism, I argue instead that we should adopt sensory pluralism. This is the view that there are indeed separate modalities, and natural ways of carving up sensory systems and their interactions, just like the monist believes; but like the eliminativist, the pluralist holds that no single account of modality and interaction is forthcoming. Against these views, the pluralist holds that there are many criteria of sensory interaction and unity, and these criteria in turn partly depend on our explanatory purposes and the investigative context. In other words, we should be pluralists about the senses and their interactions.

While some versions of pluralism can involve a radical ontology, the moderate view I have in mind is neither radical nor ontologically profligate. It simply holds that sensory systems are complexes that can be fruitfully engaged in many ways. Instead of calling it pluralism , one could, following Evans ( 1982 ) on reference, simply catalog and describe the variety of sensory interactions. Or, like Matthen ( 2010 ), one could focus on the diversity of sensory classification. These differences in terms do not track a real difference in the view I have in mind. I simply use the label sensory pluralism to name the view that sensory interactions come in many different forms, and therefore do not form a (single) natural kind.

My brand of sensory pluralism is moderate and constrained by the fact that there are indeed better and worse ways of dividing sensory interactions (more strongly: there are legitimate and illegitimate forms of sensory classification). Yet among the good ways, there are multiple equally useful options relative to our purposes. These cross-classify our perceptual systems in ways that can seem deeply at odds with each other, though in reality they enrich and mutually support our understanding of sensory experience. For instance, we can investigate as a single entity the causal-detection system composed of several seemingly distinct sensory modalities (Michotte, 1963 ). There is a legitimate theoretical and empirical question about whether this system of classification really is legitimate (as far as know, the jury is still out on this question). The pluralism I defend is thus modest rather than revisionary: it acknowledges the inherent complexity and deep interconnections between sensory systems at different processing levels, yet maintains that within this complexity there can be multiple robust explanatory systems of classification. We can, for instance, acknowledge in one explanatory context that all perception is inherently multisensory, while genuinely allowing in other contexts that some of our experiences are unisensory. My view is that what counts as a good classification of sensory interaction partly depends on the explanatory context. Hence “moderate sensory pluralism.”

In the next section, I want to highlight those general features of pluralist systems that ground legitimate schemes of classification, and support their explanatory utility.

5. The case for pluralism

I put forward here some general claims in defense of the kind of moderate pluralism I have mind. This will necessarily be a simplified discussion concerning various explanatory strategies we might take with respect to a domain. There are many discussions of pluralism in the literature, and the basic tenants are well understood. As Mitchell ( 2002 , p. 55) remarks, “The “fact” of pluralism in science is no surprise. On scanning contemporary journals, books, and conference topics in some sciences, one is struck by the multiplicity of models, theoretical approaches, and explanations.” This seems especially true of cognitive science (Dale, 2008 ; Dale et al., 2009 ). And, I shall argue, it is also the way we ought to be thinking about sensory interactions.

There are some general formal features that any complex system subject to moderate pluralism should exhibit. These are decomposition , functional overlap , and bounded recombination . We can find analogs of these features in something as simple as a Necker cube (see Figure ​ Figure2 2 ).

Necker cube .

The Necker Cube is a basic, simplified model of the kind of pluralist view I have in mind: it has constituent parts (decomposition). These parts in turn equally satisfy two inconsistent high-level descriptions, and they do so because any particular part (a line or intersection) can play more than one role (functional overlap). There are also limits to the shapes that the cube can take on (bounded recombination); while there are multiple ways of seeing the cube, these ways are highly constrained 24 .

Look at the point in the upper corner of the image picked out by the arrow. According to one high-level description, the point is a front-facing top corner of a cube. According to the other, it is a rear-facing point on the bottom corner of the cube. Which is correct? Well, the natural answer is both , depending on how the cube is seen. The parts themselves don't settle the answer since they are consistent with both views. The lines and points on the page satisfy two distinct high-level descriptions. These are highly constrained descriptions: there are only two of them for these points, and they are very precise. In fact, fixing the high-level description completely fixes the role played by these elements. In context, there are correct and incorrect descriptions of these features. Many options for this point are completely ruled out: this particular point cannot be a rear-facing top corner. Nor can it stop being a point, and so on.

In this very basic example we can see the features of a moderate form of pluralism, one without problematic metaphysical commitments. Let us take these simple lessons and formalize them a bit for proper application to the sensory domain.

5.1. Decomposition

Let's start with decomposition. It is not enough that a system has parts, but that it has functionally salient parts. This means that the system must have some functional decomposition. I am being intentionally broad about my use of “function” here. The parts of sensory systems I'm interested in play different causal, informational, mechanical, computational, and structural roles. As might be suspected from this list, I'm not here interested in, and nothing in my view hangs on, defending a particular theoretical account of function 25 . The only constraint is that the relevant notion of function not be sensitive to our interpretive or conventional uses. There must be some actual intrinsic basis on which the low-level functions are assigned 26 . I have in mind something like a “natural” or “proper” function, though very broadly construed (for a discussion of function in this sense, see Dretske, 1991 and Millikan, 1989 ).

A system is functionally decompositional—in the broad sense of function alluded to above—just in case its operation can be broken down into simpler parts that operate separately from the other constituent parts 27 . In other words, the complex system needs to be composed of parts that have a specifiable functional identity. A simple feature, like a point in space, or a complex object with lots of parts that each play no distinctive functional role, does not admit of the kind of moderate pluralism I have in mind. A hunk of iron for instance, is not subject to this sort of pluralism. It is surely a natural kind, one that can be used to do lots of different things 28 . There are versions of pluralism that would apply to hunks of iron (Havstad, 2014 ), but for my purposes it doesn't count because its parts and their functions are too simple to admit of multiple appropriate schemes of scientific classification.

This should not be surprising: work in the metaphysics of mind has long recognized that psychological systems require a minimal level of functional complexity 29 . Some entities simply do not have the structure or complexity necessary to allow for equally robust categorization at high levels 30 .

Such decomposition is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. Just because something can be broken down into functional parts, it does not follow that we should be pluralists about its high-level nature. Another feature is needed, and that is functional overlap.

5.2. Functional overlap

A pluralist friendly system must have a minimal level of complexity. In addition, however, the relationship between the constituent parts is also important. In particular, those functional parts should each contribute to distinct high-level systems.

It's unlikely that a system that had single-function parts (or more accurately, parts that contributed only to a single more complex system) could generate any interesting form of pluralism. This is simply because there would be only a single role played by that part, and so only a limited number of ways to reconceive its role in the larger system. Think about the cutting wheel on a can opener. It is an essential constituent part of the opener that plays a specialized functional role. So we have decomposition. But there's only the one role for the cutting wheel to play. It doesn't serve any other purpose, or contribute in different ways to different complexes at higher levels of the can-opener. It's therefore difficult to suggest that our understanding and classification of the can opener varies in any way with the explanatory context 31 . Typically speaking, it doesn't. Only when the parts start to take on multiple roles will we start to see interesting ways of combining them into higher level systems.

Think again about the toy example of the Necker cube. Each point on the page functions both as a facing side and a rear side, depending on the view taken. That single point on the page (or the screen) plays both roles. If there were not some functional overlap, then there would not be multiple perspectives available on the cube as a whole. The parts serve dual functions, and we are able to see them play these different roles in distinct high-level structures. What role it plays thus depends on which high-level structure we're interested in (more on this soon).

5.3. Limited recombination

The final feature is limited recombination. We can think of this as an upper bound on our pluralism. There are many ways of being a sensory system, on my view. And so our theoretical accounts of such systems are open to several distinct systems of classification. And yet, despite the existence of multiple forms of sensory interaction and methods of classification, these are highly constrained. There are clear limits on the roles played by the constituent parts and on the larger systems in which they participate. The view is not “anything goes.” This is what makes this form of pluralism moderate . There are clear objective constraints that ground the admissible conceptions of the constituent systems 32 .

While one can look at the marks of the Necker cube on the page and see distinct but legitimate shapes represented, one cannot find spheres or other shapes in the mix. The objective locations of the points and lines rule out most shape interpretations. So there are clear constraints on how we understand this relatively simple system. Not only does this make the view ontologically moderate, it is also what makes the multiple views explanatory. The claim is not that sensory systems can be understood however we like, or that there are not facts of the matter concerning the natures of sensory interactions. Instead, the idea is that there are multiple, objectively robust roles played by the constituent elements of sensory systems, and so for any particular constituent subsystem, there will be more than one role it plays in distinct higher-level systems, but not an unlimited number of such roles. As we've seen, this perfectly describes the peripheral thermoreceptor system. This system contributes to pain awareness and is thus part of the nociceptive system. It also contributes to object recognition and externally-directed thermal awareness, and so it is also an essential part of the sense of touch. It also plays an important role (along with central thermoreceptors) in the regulation of body temperature, and so is part of our homeostatic regulatory system (along with thirst and hunger). There is no single classification of these peripheral thermoreceptor populations, because they play many varied roles in our lives.

We can now see that certain complex systems are amenable to a modest pluralist view. To suggest that a single complex system can be understood and classified in multiple ways does not commit us to a problematic ontology. We can make this clear by making explicit the contextual operator in our sensory classification. A claim such as “System X is multisensory” leaves out this operator, and thus cannot be properly evaluated. It is not an explanatory statement. Instead, we should be evaluating claims of the form “System X is multisensory according to explanatory schema Y.” This schema specifies the respect in which something counts as multisensory or not. Similarly for other claims.

Adding this sort of clause will allow researchers to avoid mere terminological disputes and help clarify the nature of the investigation in question. One worry about pluralist views is that they can foster confusion and hinder scientific progress. I find compelling the reply in Ereshefsky ( 1992 , p. 680) to such worries about pluralistic views of species in biology:

[B]iologists should categorize those lineages by the criteria used to segment them: interbreeding units, monophyletic units, and ecological units. The term “species” is superfluous beyond the reference to a segmentation criterion; and when the term is used alone it leads to confusion. The term “species” has out-lived its usefulness and should be replaced by terms that more accurately describe the different types of lineages that biologists refer to as “species.”

Similarly, philosophers and others talking about sensory experience should avoid using terms like “multisensory,” “multimodal,”or “cross-modal” without being clear about the way in which they are using those terms. They should not assume that there is a single, theoretically interesting way in which senses interact, or that we can have, say, a single unified account of what qualifies as a “cross-modal” form of interaction. Some interactions are legitimately unisensory, others involve activations of processing units distributed widely in other systems (and these often overlap!). There is thus no single way for these systems to interact; they are complexes that interact in many theoretically interesting ways.

Putting all of these elements together, we can see that sensory systems should be ideally situated to the kind of pluralistic view I've been outlining. They are, after all, evolved biological systems that serve many functions, and are subject to many constraints. Indeed, all of cognition seems amendable to this perspective. As Dale et al. ( 2009 ) write: “The mind, as somehow constituted by brainbodyenvironment interaction, is extraordinarily complex. In addition, we have many and assorted interests in that interaction” (p. 1). And these parts play these roles in a number of ways, through informational extraction and computation, through behavioral and bodily features and reactions, and so on.

6. Sensory systems

It should be clear from the gloss above that sensory systems are ideal candidates to satisfy all three constraints. If we've learned anything over the last few decades, it's that our sensory systems are deeply complex structures that involve a large number of interacting elements. Very often these elements are put to different uses by various downstream systems. As such, sensory systems are decomposable into functionally salient parts. These parts (rods, cones, retinal ganglion cells, etc.) in turn perform different functions depending on which downstream systems they are contributing to 33 . And so it should not be surprising that the explanatory context—the kinds of systems we're investigating and what behaviors and capacities we seek to explain—can have a significant impact on how the various systems are categorized and understood.

Even entirely within vision this should be clear. A cone cell examined in isolation performs one function (converting electromagnetic energy into neural signals), but the function it serves can be influenced by, and in turn influence, other cones connected to it (for instance, when detecting edges). At higher levels of complexity, these same constituent elements can perform many other functions. For instance, these early visual elements are essential parts of a complex object-recognition system, but also play a role in guiding our motor actions. Recent debates about the “two visual streams hypothesis” arise partly because of these dual roles (Milner and Goodale, 1995 ). Which stream is really vision? Various options are available here, but taking the pluralist conception, one can see that we shouldn't expect a single answer. What we call “vision” is in reality a complex set of distinct systems and subsystems. There are many things that count as vision (this is the pluralism). Which one is going to be explanatory and relevant for scientific purposes depends on making clear the explanatory context. Even so, it does not depend entirely on the context; there are clear objective constraints limiting the ways we can think about visual experiences. The view is heavily grounded in the actual capacities and functions of the constituent elements of the system.

While it strengthens the claims I'll be making that they mesh with actual practice in the cognitive sciences, the case for sensory pluralism doesn't rest entirely on this descriptive enterprise. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for the truth of sensory pluralism that researchers engage in these strategies of classification (they could simply be mistaken in their current practices). My purpose also is similarly not to weigh in on or take sides on these first-order debates. Instead, the discussion is meant to show how fruitful, plausible, and powerful the pluralist perspective can be in helping further our understanding of difficult issues in recent work on perceptual experience. Moderate sensory pluralism is, ideally, a form of what Mitchell ( 2002 ) calls “compatible pluralism.” On this view, the various explanations involved are not strict competitors, but mutually supporting accounts of complex phenomena:

[C]omplex phenomenon harbor multiple interacting causal processes and multiple levels of organization which all may be involved in the generation of the feature to be explained. By disambiguating the question to be answered by an explanation–i.e., what is the evolutionary origin of a trait or behavior we observe now—one is still left with a plurality of potential causes acting at a number of levels of organization which may well constitute compatible answers to that single question (Mitchell, 2002 , p. 57)

We have seen how this perspective enriches our understanding of the thermoreceptive system. Let us see how it might apply to other recent debates in the literature 34 .

7. Implications

I will now briefly discuss some potential applications of the account described here in several domains of active research on sensory awareness.

7.1. Olfaction

The olfactory system is another obvious case where sensory pluralism finds ample support. Intuitively, we believe that we have a single “sense of smell” and that we can understand the components of this system as a single, coherent thing. The reality is a bit more complicated. We in fact have two senses of smell, a orthonasal and a retronasal system. The orthonasal system involves molecules that are picked up in the surrounding environment through the nasal cavity, often by exploratory acts of sniffing (Wilson and Stevenson, 2006 ). These inputs provide reliable information about the nature of environmental chemical stimulants (See also Batty, 2009 ). We can even use smell for wayfinding and to help influence our emotional reactions (Herz, 2007 ; Rosenblum, 2011 ).

Retronasal olfaction by contrast involves chemical irritants that rise from inside the mouth and pass through the olfactory epithelium from the other direction. Though the initial activation sites are more or less the same in both instances, the resulting perceptual experiences and functional interactions are very different from orthonasal ones. Here the smell becomes fused and combined with other taste information and generates a complex experience of flavor (Auvray and Spence, 2008 ). So is smell a unified sensory modality? Is it externally directed? Or is it part of a multisensory system of flavor detection? According to the sensory pluralist, the answer is all of the above. The initial chemoreceptors involved in both systems might be the same, but they play very different roles when combined with distinct inputs (external vs internal sources of chemical irritants) and co-processing elements (sniffing and head movements in externally directed tasks and coordinated taste and texture activations in the mouth, respectively). Here again we see that what seems like a single modality is really a complex collection of interacting elements that can be appropriately classified in a variety of ways.

7.2. Auditory processors

The auditory system also admits of several distinct schemes of classification: the initial processing units involved in auditory experience play a role in several interacting systems: general sound perception, our awareness of speech, and in the perception of music. There are reasons for thinking of these as very different systems, and thus there are multiple ways of classifying and accounting for our auditory awareness; these ways involve different functional roles, associated interactions with other systems, and behavioral capacities. In addition, of course, we can understand audition as part of larger networks connected to causal detection (as in the motion bounce illusion, Sekuler et al., 1997 ). All of these forms of classification are robust and explanatory, and often involve the same initial processing units and transducer populations. We shouldn't expect a single, unified account of audition. Like thermoreception and smell, it involves a range of capacities that admit of distinct forms of classification.

7.3. Synesthesia

Synesthesia is another interesting case for understanding sensory pluralism. This condition involves (roughly) the reliable activation of one modality by stimuli presented to another. In this way, it seems to be a kind of cross-modal interaction, but one importantly different from typical cases of multisensory integration or facilitation. In addition, it poses a number of basic definitional and phenomenological questions. Researchers have long known, for instance, that synesthesia comes in a variety of forms, and it is difficult to find a single account that covers all (and only) genuine cases (Macpherson, 2007 ; Mroczko-Wasowicz and Werning, 2012 ) 35 . Given the difficulties in presenting a robust, unified account of synesthesia, we should not be surprised if it turns out that there are multiple forms of the condition, each distinctive in various ways. The pluralist perspective suggests that we should not (simply) hold out for a single mechanism underlying the overall condition, but explore the possibility that the condition arises in a variety of distinctive ways. One could even allow that so-called normal subjects might exhibit features continuous with the possession of synesthesia (see Auvray and Deroy, in press ; Cohen, in press ). The question of what counts and what doesn't count as synesthesia in general might not be a well-formed question. Maybe synesthesia isn't a natural kind at all? 36

The sensory pluralist can allow that, in some respects, many cases of synesthesia are extensions of ordinary perceptual capacities, part of the same functional units that underlie our general experience of the world. On the other hand, from a slightly different explanatory context, we can see discontinuities as well. In addition, some forms of the condition might be more strongly connected with one context, and might exploit resources typical in ordinary perceptual interaction, whereas others might involve interactions more difficult to reconcile with typical sensory interactions. There is no reason to choose sides here (at least not yet); once we make clear the explanatory context of our investigations, and the precise nature of the interactions under investigation, we can make clear the sense in which these phenomena are like and unlike other forms of sensory awareness. What this involves, as in the other cases I've discussed, is making clear the explanatory context and embracing the idea that there may be multiple useful ways of investigating and theorizing about these interactions 37 .

7.4. Sensory substitution

There is one final area of intensive investigation that would benefit from the pluralist perspective. Sensory substitution and enhancement devices pose many challenges for traditional monist accounts of sensory individuation. Such devices provide input usually provided by one modality through a device that interacts with a different modality. For instance, a camera might be used to provide inputs to touch for a subject without normal sight. If a subject is presented with visual information through a camera system that translated those signals into a vibrating plate on the tongue, does the resulting experience count as visual or tactual? There have been many discussions about such devices 38 .

The pluralist view suggests that these devices ought to admit of distinct forms of classification. They pose such a difficulty because they often have characteristics from both modalities. If we focus on behavioral capacities we might classify the experiences generated by the device one way; if we focus instead on phenomenal character we might classify it differently. Enhancement systems might produce novel forms of awareness that don't fit into any of our current schemes of classification. They also suggest that the focus of this discussion—the multiple roles that our low level biological machinery can play—might be too narrow. Sensory enhancement and substitution might reveal that our sensory capacities outstrip the present functions of our hardware 39 .

8. Summing up

The main alternative view to pluralism would be some form of monism: the idea that a single scheme of classification should define each of the sensory modalities, and their interactions. But it should be clear from the preceding that it seems highly unlikely that we will find a unified criteria for defining each of the senses. Vision differs from the other senses in a multitude of ways, and plays many distinct roles at different levels of sensory processing. What single account of modality or interaction can capture that diversity, and then work equally well for audition, proprioception, touch, taste, vestibular awareness, sensory dominance, facilitation, suppression, and cross-modal blends (like flavor)?

Others might worry that I've left the details here are a little spare. That is intentional. I do not wish to commit myself to any particular account of scientific explanation here. If one takes a mechanistic or functional explanation as ideal for work in cognitive science, then what I say here suggests that we can (and should) focus on a diversity of functional explanations when it comes to the senses and their interactions. If one prefers a different explanatory framework (a computational or informational story, say), then my claims here should motivate us to look for a diversity of computational processes involved in the generation of sensory experience.

Nothing that I've said requires us to take a stand on intertheoretic relations, reductionism, emergence, or explanation. At no point do I claim that there are sensory systems that can or cannot be reduced to lower level functional or computational components. The claim is that, when it comes to sensory systems, we should expect distinct explanatory accounts to be available (cf. Dale et al., 2009 ). The only substantive commitment I make is that each system of classification be genuinely explanatory, and grounded in the objective basic features of the system. In this sense, it is a genuine ontological pluralism (cf. Ereshefsky, 1992 ), but a moderate one. My claim is not that we cannot know what senses “really are.” It is that, as a matter of fact, senses really are lots of things, and what counts as explanatory in our theorizing about sensory interactions depends on how we're carving the systems up and what we are trying to explain. So while my point is distinct from claims about multiple realizability and about levels of explanation in the cognitive sciences (see Marr, 1982 ; Dennett, 1989 ), the view is both compatible with and offered in the spirit of these views.

As we've seen, there has been a lot of work recently on understanding the nature of multisensory awareness. Arguments abound concerning whether we need to completely reject our prior conceptions of sensory modalities and their interactions, or whether we can salvage some aspects of sensory unity and cohesion. The sensory pluralist view doesn't, in itself, settle these debates. But it does suggest that many of these debates are merely verbal disputes, where the contexts of investigation and explanation have not been clarified. There need be no debate, for instance, between those who think of thermoreception as continuous with pain and other interoceptive systems, and those who investigate the role of thermoreception in object recognition and sensory exploration. There should be no disputes between views on which flavor awareness forms a separate modality or not. In some explanatory contexts it most certainly does; in others it need not. The pluralist view doesn't give up on the idea of correct scientific theorizing, it just makes clear something that already is the case: sensory systems and their interactions are complex, multifaceted, and occur at many levels of processing. Our theorizing about these interactions needs to recognize and take on board these complexities 40 .

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

1 As we'll see, the different response patterns of these many afferent channels play different roles in different contexts. For instance, the thinly myelinated Aδ fibers play an especially important role in our perception of wetness (Ackerley et al., 2012 ).

2 That pain you feel when eating spicy foods? It's caused by the activation of thermoreceptors. Black pepper contains piperine and chili peppers contain capsaicin , both of which both activate TPRV1 thermoreceptors. See Caterina et al. ( 1997 ).

3 Nociception represents another ideal case study in the difficulties facing any unified account of sensory interactions. For a convincing argument here see Corns ( 2014 ). For earlier discussion see Aydede and Guzeldere ( 2002 ).

4 See for example Gray ( 2012 ) for a nuanced discussion of what our thermal experiences might represent even if focussed on the body.

5 It is interesting to compare this with the distinction between emotional and discriminative touch (McGlone et al., 2007 ). These categories overlap in several respects; indeed, McGlone et al. ( 2007 ) use some of Craig's findings and terminology to help mark the difference between emotional and discriminative. However, they note some interesting cases of overlap between physiologically distinct afferent populations (p. 176), and, as we'll see, they end up defending a dualist (i.e., pluralist) view of touch.

6 I set aside for now the details concerning the role of thermoreception in nociception.

7 Indeed, I would argue that our tendency to talk of “thermoreception” and “touch” as unified entities also involves eliding important physiological and functional differences between the large number of distinct receptor populations involved in each system. We'll return to this general tendency in a later section.

8 Her focus is on sensory contents rather than processing, but the general point is the same.

9 I am grateful here to Kathleen Akins for extremely helpful discussion of this material.

10 The literature here is enormous; a good place to start is Stein ( 2012 ).

11 The transition in philosophy was largely spearheaded by O'Callaghan ( 2008 , 2007 ). Evans ( 1982 ) and Martin ( 1992 ) are other important early sources. For the most recent treatment, see the articles in Bennett and Hill ( 2014 ).

12 See for instance, recent work on smell (Batty, 2010 ; Richardson, 2011 ); on taste (Smith, 2009 , 2012 ); on sounds (Nudds, 2001 ; Matthen, 2010 ), and on touch (O'Shaughnessy, 1989 ; Scott, 2001 ; Ratcliffe, 2008 ; Richardson, 2013 ; Fulkerson, 2014b ). In addition, there has been work on many forms of experience outside the traditional five senses, for instance on temporal experience (Grush, 2005 ; Phillips, 2008 ; Lee, 2014 ) and on bodily awareness (de Vignemont, 2007 ; Schwenkler, 2011 ).

13 O'Callaghan ( 2012 ); Macpherson ( 2011 ); Bennett and Hill ( 2014 )

14 See for example Keeley ( 2002 ); Gray ( 2005 ); Nudds ( 2003 ); Macpherson ( 2010 ); Matthen ( in press ).

15 See for example Mroczko-Wasowicz and Nikolic ( 2014 ); Vuilleumier and Driver ( 2007 ); Stokes ( 2012 ); Siegel ( 2011 ); Villemure et al. ( 2003 ).

16 While my own preference is for representational and computational approaches to the mind, this assumption is not intended to rule out approaches to cognition and perception that emphasize the strong connections between this biology and the external world. For instance, it should not be taken to exclude views like those recently defended by Noë ( 2004 ); Hurley ( 1998 ); Thompson ( 2007 ). Indeed, as I say in the text, it is an advantage of my position that it leaves space for a variety of explanatory approaches to the study of perceptual experience, including embodied and enactive views. For example, my view leaves space for contexts in which a view of modality along the lines defended by McGann ( 2010 ) is appropriate. (A critical difference is that McGann's view is strongly eliminativist, holding that “there is no such thing as an experience that is purely visual, auditory, or otherwise modal” (p. 72). By my lights, whether there are such experiences is dependent on the explanatory context, and what we mean by “visual,” “auditory,” and the like.)

17 Though I should emphasize that, in my own view, such approaches are useless unless constrained and informed by the empirical facts.

18 Keeley ( 2002 ) can be read in some ways as regimenting many of these criteria as a means of individuating sensory modalities. In my view it is the strongest statement of sensory monism, but as it predates the current interest in multisensory perception, it does not even make an attempt to incorporate facts about sensory interactions.

19 A view like this seems to be advocated by Shimojo and Shams ( 2001 ).

20 See Fulkerson ( 2011 ) for one elaboration of this claim.

21 I want to emphasize that, while I speak here and throughout about the classification of sensory modalities , my target is broader than issues about the individuation of the senses. My primary concern, in fact, concerns how best to classify and understand lower level interactions between the senses.

22 This list is not exhaustive; there could be various forms of hybrid view in the area. I have difficulty imagining any hybrid view that was not consistent with the moderate pluralism I'm advocating here.

23 I have defended the idea that our best account of the individual modalities is that they are collections of sensory subsystems that function together to group or bind sets of sensory features together (Fulkerson, 2014a , b ). This claim was made in the context of sensory pluralism: this is just one way to categorize the subsystems that make up vision. In many other respects, vision really is multisensory. On my view, it really is both, depending on what framework of investigation we are using.

24 I'm using the Necker cube here as a basic model to point out those features of sensory systems that make them amenable to a pluralist view. Obviously, the analogy is not perfect. In particular, the cube lacks the required functional complexity, and its competing views are not sensitive to the explanatory context. Still, I think it is a useful toy example for clarifying the view I actually have in mind. I am grateful to an anonymous referee for pressing me to clarify this point.

25 There is, of course, a very large literature on the nature of function and mechanism in the special sciences (especially cognitive science and biology). For a very brief introduction, see Bechtel ( 2008 ); Cummins ( 1985 ); Machamer et al. ( 2000 ); Feest ( 2003 ); Millikan ( 1989 )

26 Consider again the Necker cube. While it's high level description depends on the visual context, the status of the lines and points on the page do not depend on the context. Each cube can be broken down into distinct functional complexes (corners and sides and edges, etc.).

27 In Fulkerson ( 2011 ) I discuss a version of this view, which I called the functional dissociation criterion . The notion I'm using here is broader than what I had in mind previously.

28 Perhaps this is a good place to note that what I have in mind differs significantly from the notion of multiple realizability in the cognitive sciences. The idea here isn't that the “same high level description” can be realized by different underlying constituents as in multiple realization, but that the very same set of underlying constituents can be parts of equally salient, but distinct high-level systems. My view is thus something closer to the converse of multiple realizability.

29 See for instance, see the discussion in Block ( 1997 ) concerning the “Disney Principle,” the idea that in the real world, anything with a mind needs to have a minimal level of complexity (unlike the sentient teapots and spoons in the world of cartoons). These debates arise in several domains, involving debates about reduction, emergence, and the relationship between low-level realizers and high-level descriptions (Batterman, 2000 ).

30 It is of course my view, given the above, that there are several distinct notions of pluralism and that we need to be careful not to assume that they are equivalent.

31 Of course, this is a bit simplified. Maybe for some explanatory purposes the material composition of the cutting wheel matters (why did it rust?), for others it might be its size or shape (why won't it cut this can?). These points suggest that pluralism is a robust phenomenon throughout our explanatory practices. The present point is that, above and beyond these basic forms of explanatory pluralism, sensory systems exhibit an additional layer of complexity.

32 Compare the sorting and motivating principles discussed by Ereshefsky ( 1992 ).

33 The notion of “downstream” systems can be deeply misleading. Sensory systems, like much of cognition, is deeply heterarchical, and involves processing going in multiple directions at the same time. These complications only add additional support to the claims made here.

34 The pluralist view offers a robust explanation for the prevalence of such debates. More importantly, it suggests a way to move forward on such debates, as I hope will become clear in each example.

35 See also Simner ( 2012a ) target paper, commentaries by Eagleman ( 2012 ) and Cohen Kadosh and Terhune ( 2012 ), with a reply by Simner ( 2012b ).

36 Gray ( 2001 ) makes the case that synesthesia poses problems for Fodorian modularity, and should be taken seriously in any account of psychological kinds. As one might expect, I agree with this assessment, and suggest in addition that facts about synesthesia also support a version of sensory pluralism.

37 I should emphasize, one final time, that nothing I've said here is meant to rule out genuine disagreements; there can and will be false accounts of the phenomena that can be definitely ruled out even if sensory pluralism is true.

38 For a representative discussion, see (among others): Deroy and Auvray ( 2014 ); Noë ( 2004 ); Auvray and Myin ( 2009 ); Deroy ( 2012 ); Farina ( 2013 ); Rita and Kercel ( 2003 ); Froese et al. ( 2012 ).

39 See Clark ( 2003 ) for discussion along these lines.

40 I would like to thank the editor and referees for an extremeley helpful set of comments on earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank the audience and participants at the Network for Sensory Research Workshop on Multisensory Perception held at the University of Toronto where an early version of this material was presented.

• Ackerley R., Olausson H., Wessberg J., McGlone F. (2012). Wetness perception across body sites . Neurosci. Lett . 522 , 73–77. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.06.020 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akins K. (1996). Of sensory systems and the “aboutness” of mental states . J. Philos . 93 , 337–372 10.2307/2941125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Auvray M., Deroy O. (in press). How do synesthetes experience the world , in Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception , ed Matthen M. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Auvray M., Myin E. (2009). Perception with compensatory devices: from sensory substitution to sensorimotor extension . Cogn. Sci . 33 , 1036–1058. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01040.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Auvray M., Spence C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor . Conscious. Cogn . 17 , 1016–1031. 10.1016/j.concog.2007.06.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aydede M. (2009). Is feeling pain the perception of something? J. Philos . 106 , 531–567. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aydede M., Guzeldere G. (2002). Some foundational problems in the scientific study of pain . Philos. Sci . 69 , S265–S283 10.1086/341851 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batterman R. W. (2000). Multiple realizability and universality . Br. J. Philos. Sci . 51 , 115–145 10.1093/bjps/51.1.115 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batty C. (2009). What's that smell? South. J. Philos . 47 , 321–348 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2009.tb00164.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Batty C. (2010). Scents and sensibilia . Am. Philos. Q . 47 , 103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bechtel W. (2008). Mental Mechanisms. Philosophical Perspectives on Cognitive Neuroscience . New York, NY: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett D., Hill C. (2014). Sensory Integration and the Unity of Consciousness . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Block N. (1997). Anti-reductionism slaps back . Philos. Perspect . 31 , 107–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campos J. L., Butler J. S., Bülthoff H. H. (2012). Multisensory integration in the estimation of walked distances . Exp. Brain Res . 218 , 551–565. 10.1007/s00221-012-3048-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cartwright N. (1999). The Dappled World. A Study of the Boundaries of Science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 10.1017/CBO9781139167093 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caterina M. J., Schumacher M. A., Tominaga M., Rosen T. A., Levine J. D., Julius D. (1997). The capsaicin receptor: a heat-activated ion channel in the pain pathway . Nature 389 , 816–824. 10.1038/39807 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman C. E. (1994). Active versus passive touch: factors influencing the transmission of somatosensory signals to primary somatosensory cortex . Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol . 72 , 558–570. 10.1139/y94-080 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark A. (2003). Natural-Born Cyborgs . New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleland C. E. (2013). Pluralism or unity in biology: could microbes hold the secret to life? Biol. Philos . 28 , 189–204 10.1007/s10539-013-9361-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. (in press). Synesthetic perception as continuous with ordinary perception, or: we're all synesthetes now , in Sensory Blendings: New Essays on Synaesthesia , ed Deroy O. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ), 1–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen Kadosh R., Terhune D. B. (2012). Redefining synaesthesia? Br. J. Psychol . 103 , 20–23. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02003.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly K. (2014). Making sense of multiple senses , in Consciousness Inside and Out: Phenomenology, Neuroscience, and the Nature of Experience , ed Brown R. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 351–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corns J. (2014). The inadequacy of unitary characterizations of pain . Philos. Stud . 169 , 355–378 10.1007/s11098-013-0186-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Craig A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body . Nat. Rev. Neurosci . 3 , 655–666. 10.1038/nrn894 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins R. (1985). The Nature of Psychological Explanation . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dale R. (2008). The possibility of a pluralist cognitive science . J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell . 20 , 155–179 10.1080/09528130802319078 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dale R., Dietrich E., Chemero A. (2009). Explanatory pluralism in cognitive science . Cogn. Sci . 33 , 739–742. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01042.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Vignemont F. (2007). Habeas corpus: the sense of ownership of one's own body . Mind Lang . 22 , 427–449 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00315.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dennett D. C. (1989). The Intentional Stance . Cambridge, MA: MIT. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deroy M. A. O. (2012). Reading the world through the skin and ears: a new perspective on sensory substitution . Front. Psychol . 3 : 457 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00457 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deroy O., Auvray M. (2014). A crossmodal perspective on sensory substitution , in Perception and Its Modalities , eds Biggs S., Matthen M., Stokes D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 327–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deroy O., Chen Y. C., Spence C. (2014). Multisensory constraints on awareness . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci . 369 :20130207. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0207 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dretske F. I. (1991). Explaining Behavior. Reasons in a World of Causes . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Driver J., Spence C. (2000). Multisensory perception: beyond modularity and convergence . Curr. Biol . 10 , 731–735. 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00740-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagleman D. M. (2012). Synaesthesia in its protean guises . Br. J. Psychol . 103 , 16–19. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02020.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ereshefsky M. (1992). Eliminative pluralism . Philos. Sci . 59 , 671–690 10.1086/289701 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference . Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farina M. (2013). Neither touch nor vision: sensory substitution as artificial synaesthesia? Biol. Philos . 28 , 639–655 10.1007/s10539-013-9377-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feest U. (2003). Functional analysis and the autonomy of psychology . Philos. Sci . 70 , 937–948 10.1086/377379 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fodor J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frissen I., Campos J. L., Souman J. L., Ernst M. O. (2011). Integration of vestibular and proprioceptive signals for spatial updating . Exp. Brain Res . 212 , 163–176. 10.1007/s00221-011-2717-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Froese T., McGann M., Bigge W., Spiers A., Seth A. K. (2012). The enactive torch: a new tool for the science of perception . IEEE Trans. Haptics 5 , 365–375 10.1109/TOH.2011.57 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulkerson M. (2011). The unity of haptic touch . Philos. Psychol . 24 , 493–516 10.1080/09515089.2011.556610 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulkerson M. (2014a). Explaining multisensory experience , in Consciousness Inside and Out: Phenomenology, Neuroscience, and the Nature of Experience , ed Brown R. (Dordrecht: Springer; ), 365–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulkerson M. (2014b). The First Sense. A Philosophical Study of Human Touch . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 10.7551/mitpress/9780262019965.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghazanfar A. A., Schroeder C. E. (2006). Is neocortex essentially multisensory? Trends Cogn. Sci . 10 , 278–285. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray R. (2001). Cognitive modules, synaesthesia and the constitution of psychological natural kinds . Philos. Psychol . 14 , 65–82 10.1080/09515080120033562 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray R. (2005). On the concept of a sense . Synthese 147 , 461–475 10.1007/s11229-005-1334-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray R. (2012). What do our experiences of heat and cold represent? Philos. Stud . 166 , 131–151 10.1007/s11098-012-0083-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grush R. (2005). Brain time and phenomenological time , in Philosophy and the Neurosciences , eds Brooks A., Akins K. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 160–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammel H. T., Pierce J. B. (2002). Regulation of internal body temperature . Ann. Rev. Physiol . 30 , 641–710. 10.1146/annurev.ph.30.030168.003233 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Havstad J. (2014). Biochemical Kinds and Selective Naturalism . PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, CA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herz R. (2007). The Scent of Desire . New York, NY: William Morrow. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herz R. S., von Clef J. (2001). The influence of verbal labeling on the perception of odors: evidence for olfactory illusions? Perception 30 , 381–391. 10.1068/p3179 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurley S. (1998). Consciousness in Action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones L. A., Lederman S. J. (2006). Human Hand Function . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195173154.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keeley B. (2002). Making sense of the senses: individuating modalities in humans and other animals . J. Philos . 99 , 5–28 10.2307/3655759 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitcher P. (1984). Species . Philos. Sci . 51 , 308–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klatzky R., Lederman S. (2008). Object recognition by touch , in Blindness and Brain Plasticity in Navigation and Object Perception , eds Rieser J. J., Ashmead D. H., Ebner F. F., Corn L. L. (New York, NY: Lawerence Erlbaum, Psychology Press; ), 185–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee G. (2014). Temporal experience and the temporal structure of experience . Philosopher's Imprint 14 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lumpkin E. A., Caterina M. J. (2007). Mechanisms of sensory transduction in the skin . Nature 445 , 858–865. 10.1038/nature05662 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Machamer P., Darden L., Craver C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms . Philos. Sci . 67 , 1–25 10.1086/392759 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macpherson F. (2007). Synaesthesia, functionalism and phenomenology , in Cartographies of the Mind , eds Marraffa M., Ferretti F., de Caro M. (Dordrecht: Kluwer; Springer; ), 65–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macpherson F. (2010). Taxonomising the senses . Philos. Stud . 153 , 123–142 10.1007/s11098-010-9643-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macpherson F. (2011). XV-cross-modal experiences . Proc. Arist. Soc . 111 , 429–468 10.1111/j.1467-9264.2011.00317.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mag Uidhir C., Magnus P. D. (2011). Art concept pluralism . Metaphilosophy 42 , 83–97 10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01678.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marr D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information . San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin M. (1992). Sight and touch , in The Contents of Experience , ed Crane T. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 196–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthen M. (2010). On the diversity of auditory objects . Rev. Philos. Psychol . 1 , 63–89 10.1007/s13164-009-0018-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthen M. (in press). The individuation of the senses , in Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Perception , ed Matthen M. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• McGann M. (2010). Perceptual modalities: modes of presentation or modes of interaction? J. Conscious. Stud . 17 , 1–2. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGlone F., Vallbo A. B., Olausson H., Loken L., Wessberg J. (2007). Discriminative touch and emotional touch . Can. J. Exp. Psychol . 61 , 173–183. 10.1037/cjep2007019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGurk H., MacDonald J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices . Nature 264 , 746–748. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michotte A. (1963). The Perception of Causality . New York, NY: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Millikan R. (1989). In defense of proper functions . Philos. Sci . 56 , 288–302 10.1086/289488 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milner A. D., Goodale M. A. (1995). The visual Brain in Action . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishler B. D., Brandon R. N. (1987). Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept . Biol. Philos . 2 , 397–414 10.1007/BF00127698 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell S. D. (2002). Integrative pluralism . Biol. Philos . 17 , 55–70 10.1023/A:1012990030867 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mroczko-Wasowicz A., Nikolic D. (2014). Semantic mechanisms may be responsible for developing synesthesia . Front. Hum. Neurosci . 8 : 509 . 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00509 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mroczko-Wasowicz A., Werning M. (2012). Synesthesia, sensory-motor contingency, and semantic emulation: how swimming style-color synesthesia challenges the traditional view of synesthesia . Front. Psychol . 3 : 279 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00279 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakamura K., Morrison S. F. (2007). A thermosensory pathway that controls body temperature . Nat. Neurosci . 11 , 62–71. 10.1038/nn2027 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noë A. (2004). Action in Perception . Cambridge, MA: MIT. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nudds M. (2001). Experiencing the production of sounds . Eur. J. Philos . 9 , 210–229 10.1111/1468-0378.00136 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nudds M. (2003). The significance of the senses . Proc. Arist. Soc . 104 , 31–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Callaghan C. (2007). Sounds: a Philosophical Theory . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215928.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Callaghan C. (2008). Seeing what you hear: cross-modal illusions and perception . Philos. Issues 18 , 316–338 10.1111/j.1533-6077.2008.00150.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Callaghan C. (2012). Perception and multimodality , in Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science , eds Margolis E., Samuels R., Stich S. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ), 73–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Shaughnessy B. (1989). The sense of touch . Aust. J. Philos . 67 , 37–58. 10.1080/00048408912343671 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips I. (2008). Perceiving temporal properties . Eur. J. Philos . 18 , 176–202 10.1111/j.1468-0378.2008.00299.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pylyshyn Z. (2006). Seeing and Visualizing: It's Not What You Think . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ratcliffe M. (2008). Touch and situatedness . Int. J. Philos. Stud . 16 , 299–322 10.1080/09672550802110827 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richardson L. (2011). Sniffing and smelling . Philos. Stud . 162 , 401–419 10.1007/s11098-011-9774-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richardson L. (2013). Bodily sensation and tactile perception . Philos. Phenomenol. Res . 86 , 134–154 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2011.00504.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rita P. B.-Y., Kercel S. W. (2003). Sensory substitution and the human–machine interface . Trends Cogn. Sci . 7 , 541–546. 10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.013 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenblum L. D. (2011). See What I'm Saying: The Extraordinary Powers of Our Five Senses . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schepers R. J., Ringkamp M. (2010). Thermoreceptors and thermosensitive afferents . Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev . 34 , 177–184. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwenkler J. (2011). The objects of bodily awareness . Philos. Stud . 162 , 465–472 10.1007/s11098-011-9777-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott M. (2001). Tactual perception . Aust. J. Philos . 79 , 149–160 10.1080/713931200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sekuler R., Sekuler A. B., Lau R. (1997). Sound alters visual motion perception . Nature 385 , 308–308. 10.1038/385308a0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimojo S., Shams L. (2001). Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions . Curr. Opin. Neurobiol . 11 , 505–509. 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00241-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegel S. (2011). Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification * . Nous 46 , 201–222 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00786.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simner J. (2012a). Defining synaesthesia . Br. J. Psychol . 103 , 1–15. 10.1348/000712610X528305 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simner J. (2012b). Defining synaesthesia: a response to two excellent commentaries . Br. J. Psychol . 103 , 24–27. 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02059.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skipper J. I., van Wassenhove V., Nusbaum H. C., Small S. L. (2007). Hearing lips and seeing voices: how cortical areas supporting speech production mediate audiovisual speech perception . Cereb. Cortex 17 , 2387–2399. 10.1093/cercor/bhl147 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith B. (2009). Taste, philosophical perspectives , in Encyclopedia of the Mind , ed Pashler H. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.), 731–734. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith B. (2012). Perspective: complexities of flavour . Nature 486 , S6. 10.1038/486S6a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steel D. (2004). Can a reductionist be a pluralist? Biol. Philos . 19 , 55–73 10.1023/B:BIPH.0000013263.35121.5a [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein B. E. (2012). The New Handbook of Multisensory Processes . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stokes D. (2012). Perceiving and desiring: a new look at the cognitive penetrability of experience . Philos. Stud. Int. J. Philos. Anal. Tradit . 158 , 477–492 10.1007/s11098-010-9688-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan A. (1923). The perceptions of liquidity, semi-liquidity and solidity . Am. J. Psychol . 34 , 531–541 10.2307/1414055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson E. (2007). Mind in life . Cambridge, MA: Harvard. [ Google Scholar ]
• Villemure C., Slotnick B. M., Bushnell M. C. (2003). Effects of odors on pain perception: deciphering the roles of emotion and attention . Pain 106 , 101–108. 10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00297-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vuilleumier P., Driver J. (2007). Modulation of visual processing by attention and emotion: windows on causal interactions between human brain regions . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci . 362 , 837–855. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsh M. J. (2001). Biochemical basis of touch perception: mechanosensory function of degenerin/Epithelial Na+ channels . J. Biol. Chem . 277 , 2369–2372. 10.1074/jbc.R100060200 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger C. B. (1995). The regulation of body temperature , in Medical Physiology , ed Rodney R. (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co; ), 527–550. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson D. A., Stevenson R. J. (2006). Learning to Smell: Olfactory Perception from Neurobiology to Behavior . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [ Google Scholar ]

Psychology is the science of the mind. While there are many subfields of psychology, three of them -- cognitive psychology , animal psychology , and neuropsychology -- have contributed a great deal to the study of perception through experimentation. Hence, each of these subfields qualifies as experimental psychology too. As the name implies, experimental psychology is the type of psychology whereby a researcher forms a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis by requiring that a subject perform a relevant task, observes the subject's behavior, then evaluates the hypothesis in relation to the positive or negative data collected. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of methods, instruments, and techniques used by experimental psychologists to test hypotheses about perception.

Some of these methods require merely presenting the subject with a sensory stimulus and having the subject report what she sees. Experiments designed to "evoke reports" are used to study many types of perceptual phenomena:

• "pop-out" effects
• visual illusions
• naming (object recognition)
• matching abilities
• discrimination abilities
• motion detection

You will see such experiments at several places in the curriculum.

Other methods require the use of instruments to record a subject's behavior as he performs a perceptual task. This is the case in studies of eye-movements and most other neuropsychological research into the brain. But because neuroscience is the science of the brain, let us turn to an overview of neuroscientific research methods.

Because no one research method can answer every question at every level of processing for every system neuroscientists use a variety of methods, instruments, and techniques to study perception. If we ignore the role of the computer as a research tool in modeling how the brain works (a topic we shall deal with below), neuroscientific methods fall into two classes, invasive ones and noninvasive ones.

What does it mean to be a computer?

Is your brain literally a computer or something fundamentally different?

If your brain is a computer, is it a digital computer (like a Mac or a PC), or is it some other (nonclassical) type of computer?

Now is not the time to explore these issues. We shall deal with them in due course. They have been raised here to make you sensitive to some of the controversies surrounding the widespread use of computers to model and to explain perception.

We Speak Otaku

Other Links

Where you can find us

Give Support

Thank you to our supporters

With their help, we can us keep the site ad-free and pay a fair rate to our writers.

Story and Perception: A Short Case Study

Stories can be used to capture attention . Attention, according to Seth Godin, is the most limited of resources. He argues that we’re often told to pay attention, with “pay” being the key verb. Attention is ultimately limited for everybody. There are no more than 24 hours in a day, and no more than 365 days in a (non-leap) year. People know this, and have begun to grow choosy with their precious time.

In this day and age, it’s impossible to just cater to the shoujo fans, or the shounen fans, or the moe aficionado. To capture the greatest range of attention possible, we need to begin to create frames. These frames can bring together entirely different world-views, based on common threads among them. They can inspire conversations and debates, and they can work around the biases that each smaller group holds.

To illustrate this example, I’d like to bring up Strike Witches. Strike Witches is, for all intents and purposes, a moe show. However, the show also has elements that would appeal to fans of dramas, comedies, and action fans as well. Rather than call a spade a spade, FUNimation decided to tell its own story. The story they chose to tell was The War On Pants. The marketing team played off of an absurdity in the show – namely that no female characters wore pants. Period. They’d wear kimonos, long overshirts, or the like, but pants were verboten. The group created playful newsreel-inspired YouTube trailers (below) and advertisements that reflected World War II propaganda posters. These used language like “Give ’em Hell, Ladies!” and had a strong ’40s military motif to them. They told the story of a product that was both playful and intense. This was a show that was fun, but had its serious side.

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fJqX_0fJ5w&feature=player_embedded’]

The advertising may not have been one hundred percent accurate, but it definitely got people talking. Hashtags of #waronpants erupted on Twitter, and articles began to play with the whole “War On Pants” angle. Message boards and chat rooms lit up with conversations on the unusual advertising campaign. Articles from sites like Japanator boldly proclaimed things like “If you do not laugh, you have no soul” in regards to the campaign. By the time the show’s ship date arrived, the narrative had been told, and the frame was set. People knew Strike Witches as the show with the War on Pants. This translated into market performance, as the curious flocked to the show. Those who would normally show no interest were pulled in by the frame that the show was cast in, and the show soared to the top of the charts.

Through a compelling story, FUNimation managed to frame a show destined for middle-of-the-road sales as something whimsical, wacky, and unique. They managed to earn some of the broader market’s precious attention, which spread among the core customers, as well as new, untapped markets. Strike Witches – rather, the War On Pants managed to inspire conversations, which later translated to sales. Most important, these stories made what would have been a run-of-the-mill product into something truly remarkable.

With the right story, one can turn any product into a unique experience. A compelling story that captures the right frame will command attention toward a product, be it potato chips, cars, or anime. These stories are rarely easy to tell. However, when they are handled well, the benefits are truly phenomenal.

Share With Your Network

https://www.animeherald.com/2011/10/08/story-and-perception-a-short-case-study/

Filed Under: Editorials

Tag(s): funimation , marketing

Samantha Ferreira

Samantha Ferreira is Anime Herald’s founder and editor-in-chief. A Rhode Island native, Samantha has been an anime fan since 1992, and an active member of the anime press since 2002, when she began working as a reviewer for Anime Dream. She launched Anime Herald in 2010, and continues to oversee its operations to this day. Outside of journalism, Samantha actively studies the history of the North American anime fandom and industry, with a particular focus on the 2000s anime boom and bust. She’s a huge fan of all things Sakura Wars, and maintains series fansite Combat Revue Review when she has free time available. When not in the Anime Herald Discord, Samantha can typically be found on Bluesky.

Support Anime Herald

Anime Herald is brought to you through our Patrons and Ko-fi supporters. Consider backing us for as little as $1 a month to help us keep the site ad-free and pay a fair rate to our writers.

Patrons and backers can access several benefits, including Early Article Access, our members-only Discord, and the ability to suggest articles for our team to write on your behalf.

Related Posts

BOFURI (Surprisingly) Shows Gamers As They Actually Are

By Marina Garrow

Will I Ever Want To Go To An Anime Con Again?

By Sergio Giovanni

Moe Anthropomorphism & Objectification, As Told by KanColle and Azur Lane

By Jordan Mulder

It’s Time To Take a Stand. #BlackLivesMatter

By Samantha Ferreira

Latest Posts

Cover USA’s Max Kim Talks With Anime Herald

"Sharing the love for the performers. Finding more opportunities where people can do that is something we’re looking into."

By Seth Burn

The Blue Miburo Anime Team Talks With Anime Herald

Anime Expo 2024: CyberConnect2’s Taichiro Miyazaki Talks With Anime Herald

A Fandom Life Well-Lived: A Conversation With Greg Ayres

By Kennedy (Red Bard)

Katsucon 2024: Paul St. Peter Talks With Red Bard

Perception evaluation kit: a case study with materials and learning styles

• Published: 15 August 2021
• Volume 32 , pages 1941–1962, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Ainoa Abella   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6375-0317 1 , 2 ,
• María Araya León   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7284-6943 1 , 3 ,
• Lluís Marco-Almagro   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0440-1675 2 &
• Laura Clèries Garcia 1  

3446 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Materials are elements that configure our built environment and are key components in design and engineering education. This research aims to understand learners’ sensorial perception of materials as stimuli and what constitutes the most appropriate communication channel for learning about their characteristics without losing information in accordance with their VAK learning styles–visual, auditory and kinaesthetic–. Seventy-five people participated in this workshop. Using evaluation tools in a test format, they evaluated all the sensory properties of the following materials: Alusion™, PolarMoss, and Silkworms. These three materials were presented in various interaction formats, called channels: a text plus image–C1–, video–C2–, and a physical sample plus audio–C3–. Two types of experiments were carried out: mixed per person—interaction with the three materials in a different channel each time in random order—and blocked per person—interaction with the same material in the three channels, in an order of C1–C3. The data obtained was analysed using mixed models with the channel as a fixed factor and the individuals and material as the random factors. The most relevant results indicate significant differences between channels in accordance with the sensory property, normally C2 and C3. The level of responses between the two experiments is similar, therefore showing that the order C1–C2–C3 does not affect perception. Although the three learning styles–visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic–coexist in the participants, the vast majority agree that they prefer C3 as easier to evaluate, more entertaining and the best way to learn.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Study of Sound and Shape Effects on Design

Multi-sensory Experience in the Creative Design of the Project: How to Materialize Them in Spatial Language

Enabling Learning Experiences for Visually Impaired Children by Interaction Design

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Education has evolved and adapted to different contexts and societal realities. Nowadays, new learner-centred methods focusing on the best way to approach each individual and their own particular situations are crucial. Neuroscience research has shown that people learn better through emotions (Dirkx, 2011 ; LeDoux, 1992 ).

Emotions and the process of perceiving and internalizing knowledge vary with each individual (Tyng et al., 2017 ) and each of their learning styles. It is for this reason that more and more teachers are trying to use multiple resources and diversify formats.

In today’s context, some non-face to face learning formats make it possible to provide a large variety of distance courses. This offers clear advantages for learning and accessible education yet poses a challenge in some areas such as concerns adapting content without losing important information.

When it comes to the formation of materials, studying and understanding the most adequate formats and tools for encouraging a more holistic transfer by combining technical and psychological properties is essential (Abella Garcia et al., 2019 ).

This study aims to contribute further data to be able to understand and answer the main research questions: How does the perception of the materials vary depending on the communication channel used? Is there a relationship between communication channels and learning styles?

Theoretical framework

• Learning styles

Learning styles involve how the mind processes information through each individual’s perceptions with the senses playing a primary role when absorbing and incorporating information from the surrounding environment. Despite the large body of research, there are some researchers and educators unconvinced of the learning styles benefits (Miller, 2001 ; Swanson, 1995 ). However, effective learning requires working based on each individual’s different preferences and characteristics (Huang, 2019 ).

The way in which people receive information can be divided into three categories, also called modes, channels of perception or VAK–visual, auditory and kinaesthetic– (Dunn & Dunn, 1978 ). Human beings use all three ways of processing information, but one is more developed for the large majority.

The reception of information in the brain becomes an important aspect in the learning process as this perception—understood as the process of capturing and processing the information received from the outside- gives rise to individual perceptual preference. Therefore, each human tends to largely use one of the three VAK perceptual modes as doing so improves their performance and helps them more easily learn the information (Cid et al., 2012 ).

These modes involve different predominate senses for collecting and processing information. The visual mode quite often uses the process of thinking in images. Useful resources for this mode include conceptual maps, videos, presentations, illustrations, photographs, summary tables, diagrams, among others (Medina-Velandia & Plazas-Gómez, 2018 ; VARK Learn Limited, 2020 ) and normally with a preference for reading over listening (Mora et al., 2015 ).

With the auditory mode, the information is internalized through a process of sequential and organized listening. Guided readings, discussions, verbal instructions or explanations out loud are tools which help auditory people capture better (Medina-Velandia & Plazas-Gómez, 2018 ; VARK Learn Limited, 2020 ). Moreover, people of this type more easily learn languages, imitate and speak to themselves. They find it more difficult to concentrate with background noise or sounds (Mora et al., 2015 ).

The kinaesthetic mode is the process by which information is acquired through sensations and movements. Some of the characteristics that differentiate it from the other two modes is a tendency to walk or move around to memorize information and a need for experiential learning; in other words, manipulating, experimenting, doing and feeling first-hand in order to understand and process information (Mora et al., 2015 ).

Each learning style is associated with a certain behaviour that fosters this information processing and, thus, the associated knowledge. According to Meza and Gómez ( 2008 ), visual people show organized, orderly, observant and calm behaviours, base everything on what they see and think through graphs, outlines and images. When the auditory mode is predominant, people have a way with words, remember what they hear and, thus, dialogues, talks, debates and sounds are elements that help them remember things. Finally, kinaesthetic learners learn by doing; in other words, by touching and through the sensations they feel.

Since the learning rate increases by personalizing content and thereby reducing the time necessary for learning to occur (Jafari & Abdollahzade, 2019 ), learning styles make it possible to understand how each individual learns so as to get the most out of their capabilities and possibilities efficiently and constructively. One of the major challenges in teaching is providing knowledge as well as planning activities coherently and in a diversified way so that, based on their predominant mode, everyone may capture and gain further knowledge in a competent and effective manner.

Educational formats, channels, and effectiveness

University education has transformed and changed in recent decades. Active learning strategies are becoming more and more popular and common as they stimulate inquiry and interest as students acquire knowledge and skills (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000 ). Moreover, they offer major benefits given that they are learner-centred, allow for greater participation and motivation and make topics more immediate and vivid by encouraging students to move beyond the surface and facts (Bonwell & Eison, 1991 ; Ladousse, 1982 ; McCarthy & Anderson, 2000 ; McKeachie, 2011 ).

Thanks to technological and digital progress and a rise in the demand for training, traditional physical classroom models with classical support material such as literature have begun to co-exist with other formats. Distance and digital education enable a transfer of knowledge that breaks from established criteria; in other words, virtual education is becoming an alternative that allows for more flexibility, in terms of time and space (Serrat-Brustenga & Sunyer Lázaro, 2012 ). Nowadays, there are three types of communication channels used to transmit information when considering the user, the number of stimuli and the quantity of information received (Abella Garcia et al., 2019 ).

The three channels are as follows:

C1: texts and flat images like textbooks, articles and visual material, etc.

C2: audiovisual material such as videos, virtual prototypes, resources with elements that are near-life size.

C3: material or knowledge with which one can directly interact or are from a real context with which one can feel through the senses and by doing something.

The perceptions and emotional state resulting from the learning process are very different based on the channel used meaning a correct choice thereof is relevant. Likewise, combining communication channels with a learner’s predominant learning style can foster and enable more effective knowledge absorption as the senses are better stimulated.

Emotional learning in materials education

Material selection when developing a design project is a fundamental unit of education in this field for the correct and coherent application thereof. For this purpose, there are different methods and ways to approach the complex nature of such selection considering the different characteristics of the materials from the most technical and objective to the sensorial, perceptual and emotional properties or the most subjective.

The more objective characteristics are what have been most studied and developed to date; however, the more subjective dimension of how materials are perceived is still being assessed and researched (Rognoli, 2010 ). Due to the complexity, grouping them into one universal language is difficult. Sensory properties and pertinent cultural associations are largely ignored in the development of new materials. The foregoing has revealed a need for change in education programs and a search for tools that offer references and translate subjective experiences with materials so as to transmit knowledge to students on how to manage and apply this emotional dimension to design (Wilkes et al., 2016 ). Some examples are data on textures and aesthetic values (Calvillo Cortés & Falcón Morales, 2016 ; Rognoli, 2010 ; van Kesteren, 2008 ).

In particular, interaction with materials and physical samples during the learning process and design process is fundamental to obtaining information on the sensory, aesthetic and value properties(Karana et al., 2009 ). Many of the tools and methods that make it possible to obtain perceptual and emotional information are physical like materials libraries, for example. Due to the limitations of these resources, such as access to them and/or their cost, the use of other formats in the learning process with this sensorial and emotional dimension such as literature, virtual platforms and software is inevitable.

Nowadays, there are different virtual platforms and software programs that deliver information on materials –mostly technical– and innovation in this area. Added to the difficulty in accessing physical samples, all of the foregoing means understanding how all characteristics, especially those involving sensorial and emotional aspects, can be transmitted in virtual arenas without losing information is essential. Thus, the fundamental challenge is to continue exploring and researching these lines.

As part of the search and possible answers for understanding how the perception of materials varies based on the communication thereof, a workshop was carried out entitled “Perception Evaluation Kit: A Case Study with Materials”. The aim of this case study is to determine the possible variation in the perception of materials based on the communication channel used in addition to the influence and distribution of the participants’ learning styles and preferences for the different channels. On the other hand, the idea is to contribute further data and ideas on this issue.

Workshop methodology

Introduction to the workshop.

The workshop was carried out as part of the first-year subject Materials Physics in the Product Design Engineering undergraduate degree program at Elisava, Barcelona School of Design and Engineering. It was completed over four different sessions during the month of May 2019, following the four groups’ timetables so the activity could be undertaken in smaller teams. The estimated duration was approximately 45 min with 25 min used for the assessment and another 10 for debate and discussion. The tools and procedures used were previously designed following the model of the first Perception Evaluation Kit: A Case Study with Materials workshop (Abella Garcia et al., 2019 ), considering some 100 students. The toolkit is comprised of: instructions for material interaction based on the class group, physical and digital channel support, a selection of physical materials, a Learning Style Test and a Perception Evaluation Card.

The channels used to transmit the information were:

C1: A sheet for each material: An 80–115 word description was provided along with an image of the corresponding material (Fig. 1 ).

C2: The video was shown in some cases on a computer see the section Participants, Materials and Procedures and Fig.  11 —blocked per person– with the information projected on a screen for the rest—mixed per person. Each video shows general and detailed drawings of each material with a hand added to some drawings to provide information on the scale and sound. The video is a self-generated resource which was filmed—the explanation is given in English– and edited by the research team (Fig. 2 ).

C3: An audio with a description of the material in English was presented in this channel. It was transmitted through earphones or speakers –blocked per person– while the person touched the physical sample or, in other cases, the audio was transmitted in general throughout the entire classroom. Just as with the video, the audios were recorded by the research team (Fig. 3 ).

The material information sheet presented in channel 1. Source: (Abella Garcia et al. 2019 )

Material presented in channel 2. Source: (Abella Garcia et al. 2019 )

Material available in channel 3. Source: (Abella Garcia et al.  2019 )

The characteristics of the information provided per material were the same in the three channels. The estimated reading time was previously calculated and added to the duration of the video –C2– and audio –C3–.

Each channel worked is a reflection of the options available today for presenting and acquiring knowledge of materials. Channel 1 –C1– represents textbooks, catalogues and datasheets, channel 2 –C2– videos, much like what can be found on virtual platforms and channel 3 –C3– is an approximate simulation of visits to specialized materials centres such as materials libraries where people can not only touch the materials but also get an explanation thereof.

Material samples

The materials chosen all have different sensory properties.

For identification purposes, the samples were numbered using the same system as the channels, M1, M2 and M3.

The first material –M1– was stabilized aluminium foam marketed under the brand name “Alusion” (Materfad n.d.). It was chosen because of how its characteristics are contrary to what is perceived. For example, the weight seems to be a heavy material yet it is actually light upon physical interaction. The texture is different from other metals and it makes a sound when in contact with other elements (Fig. 4 ).

M1 Alusion™ sample

M2 corresponds to PolarMoss (PolarMoss, n.d.) which is a natural moss. It was chosen because it is a rather surprising material to the touch which mixes natural aspects with various colours. Red, dark green and light green were used for the workshop. On the other hand, it offers sound absorption characteristics which are not obvious upon simple sight (Fig. 5 ).

M2 PolarMoss sample

Finally, M3, Silkworm Cocoon (Huissoud, 2019 ) is a natural wood material with a leathery look. This material was chosen because of the predominant olfactory characteristics and unique texture; these properties differ based on the channel. It is worth mentioning that this material allows more exploration of properties related to smell and taste (Fig. 6 ).

M3 Silkworms material

Perception evaluation card

Printed Perception Evaluation Card (Abella Garcia et al., 2019 ) sheets were used to quantify the participants’ perception based on the channel and material presented. This strategy not only eliminates dependence on technological devices, but also dependence on connection quality when using digital formats.

As can be observed in Fig.  7 , a variant was considered related to two questions added to this workshop; they are included in order to understand possible associations and applications of the material.

Perception Evaluation Kit

Learning style test

A test with ten questions was used to classify the students’ learning styles. Questions were selected from the article VAK Learning Styles Self-Assessment Questionnaire (Businessballs, 2019 ) which were directly related to the product so they were more significant and concordant with the students’ backgrounds. The answers were mixed up so A was not always associated with visual, B with auditory and C with Kinaesthetic (Figs. 8 , 9 ).

Learning Styles Test, part 1, with an internal answer guide for tutors or researchers

Learning Styles Test, part 2, with an internal answer guide for tutors or researchers

Moreover, three questions were added after the assessment of the three materials referring to the learning styles and communication channels. The questions were as follows:

Which channel did you find easier to evaluate all properties?

Which channel did you find more entertaining?

Which channel did you most like for learning about the materials?

Participants, materials, and procedures

Seventy-five people participated in the workshop over four different sessions which were organized pursuant to their class timetables—session 1: 18 people, session 2: 17 people, session 3: 22 people and session 4: 18 people-. Each group/class reflects a pre-set order which is random and balanced for overall statistical validity and meaning.

The workshop proposes two different experiments: mixed per person and blocked per person.

Mixed per person: The participating students interact with a different material through each channel, see Fig.  10 . This experiment was carried out over the first three sessions and each group/class interacted with the three materials, one per channel without repeating any material sample. One may observe that each group/class reflects the same order as far as the channel yet not in relation to the samples. This was done to provide overall balance.

Blocked per person: The participating students were divided into three smaller groups. These groups were defined and assigned a material –M1, M2 or M3-. Depending on the material sample defined for each group, the specific material was presented in the three different channels beginning with C1, then C2 and finally, C3 –opening up the channel and expanding upon the quantity of information received- (see Fig.  11 ).

Mixed per person experiment

Blocked per person experiment

There are different steps in the workshop and the monitoring thereof makes it possible to perform the complete activity. Firstly, the students answered the Learning Style Test and then assessed the materials with the Perception Evaluation Kit as per the experimental design and order assigned. After interacting with the material, the students completed the Perception Evaluation Card. The participants can choose to either fill in all of the properties or leave some blank if they do not know or are not sure. Once the entire itinerary is finished—a complete assessment- the three questions on the channels and learning are answered. All the tests—Learning Style Test and Perception Evaluation Kit- were returned and a debate and reflection period began with further interaction with all the available physical samples.

There were 2 workshop tutors to explain and conduct the activity for proper implementation of the workshop, except for the last session—a blocked per person experimental design—when there were 3 so that one could be available for each group.

Material perception per channel

One of the aims of the research is to determine how perception of a material changes based on the communication channel used. In other words, whether the perception of the materials is different based on C1, C2 or C3. Two different experimental types were used with this case study: mixed per person and blocked per person. With the first, the material samples by channel were different while with the second, the material was always the same. The following sections explain the findings.

Mixed per person

The participant analysis followed the distribution shown in Fig.  10 , applying mixed models with the channel as a fixed factor and the individuals and the material as random factors. The findings indicate significant differences between channels as per the pair of properties assessed in the large majority of the cases except for six properties. What follows are the detailed findings in Figs.  12 – 17 , grouped by similarity in the results.

First cluster of sensory properties

Second cluster of sensory properties

Third cluster of sensory properties

Fourth cluster of sensory properties

Fifth cluster of sensory properties

Final cluster of sensory properties

The properties presented in Fig.  12 are related to the senses of taste and sight. C2 stands out over the other two as the properties reflect perception scores in this channel which are a bit lower; in other words, there is a slight inclination for the opposite property –corresponding to scores with a negative value–.

Upon observing Fig.  13 , the properties show a common pattern as the scores for perception gradually drop from C1 to C3. For the light-heavy property in this step from C1 to C2, the result moves from lighter to the highest value. However, the idea of the smell of the materials is reaffirmed under the fragrant-odourless property.

In accordance with the information presented in Fig.  14 , the three channels show gradually increasing scores from a more negative tendency to a more neutral one –0– in C3. The salty-sweet pair stands out in C2 in comparison with C1 and C3.

As concerns the properties presented above, C1 stands out in Fig.  15 with more positive values with respect to C2 and C3 which show more similar scores between them. In channel 1, the materials are perceived as more opaque and non-elastic whereas the values are closer to neutral in the other channels.

In this Fig. 16 , two pairs of properties show significant differences between channels but do not share a similar pattern with any other property. On the one hand, the fragile-strong property in C3 is different from the others as the materials score as a bit less strong in this one. Yet the sound absorbent-sound reflector pair is different from the others in C3 as well.

The final cluster of sensory properties (see Fig.  17 ) reflects those which do not show any significant differences between channels. In other words, the scores are similar between C1, C2 and C3. These properties are related to the senses of sight and touch and the participants are likely more familiar with unconsciously assessing them in elements of daily interaction.

Blocked per person

The participant analysis followed the distribution shown in Fig.  11 , applying mixed models with the channel as a fixed factor and the individuals and the material as random factors. The findings indicate significant differences between channels as per the pair of properties assessed in most of the cases except with five properties –Fragile-Strong, Colourful-Colourless, Intense colours-Mild colours, Reflective-Non Reflective and Soft-Hard–.

Figure  18 shows the results of the scores for each pair of properties as per the two experiment types. In the previous section –mixed– the sensory properties were grouped based on the patterns reflected. In the case of the blocked per person experiment, four clusters can be distinguished due to their similar results.

Comparison of the scores of properties as per the experiment type

Firstly, the properties that reflect significant differences in channel 3 are: Bitter- Sour, Fragrant—Odourless, Light—Heavy, Rough—Smooth, Transparent—Opaque and Tasty—Bland. There are two other property pairs, Ductile-Tough and Sound absorbent—Sound insulating, where C3 is also different in comparison with the others yet the responses show another pattern. This horizontal mirrored pattern is the one that reflects the perception results for Cold—Warm. On the other hand, C2 is statistically significant in comparison with C1 and C3 with respect to Elastic—Non Elastic and reflects the same horizontal rotated pattern for Colourful—Colourless. Finally, five pairs of properties showed no differences between channels: Fragile—Strong, Glossy—Matte and Intense colours—Mild colours, Reflective—Non Reflective and Transparent—Opaque.

Learning styles and communication channels

Another aim of this case study was to determine the distribution of the participants’ learning styles as well as understand the preferences and use of the communication channels for presenting information on materials. As mentioned above, three different items were evaluated with respect to a preference for communication channels: the ease of assessing all the properties, how entertaining it was and the pleasure in learning.

Figure  19 below shows the distribution of visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learning styles in the entire group of participants. As can be seen, a large majority reflect a combination of the VAK perceptual modes although there are clear differences between them. Two learning styles are predominant in some participants whereas three co-exist in others.

Distribution of learning styles among participants

The participants’ visual, auditory and kinaesthetic percentages were recoded as follows to use a Chi-Square test to verify the possible relationship between channels and learning styles, see Table 1 .

After obtaining the adjusted percentages with the new values, a Chi-square test was done to find any possible relationship between learning styles and the channel perceived as easiest for assessing all the properties –easy –, more entertaining –entertaining– and the one the participants liked the most for learning about materials –learning–.

No statistically significant relationship was observed for the visual learning style—with a level of significance of 5%–. However, findings of interest were obtained when the study was done with auditory and kinaesthetic learnings styles.

Although the large majority of people see channel 3 as easier and more entertaining, there is a significant difference in preference for channels 1 and 2 for the easier and more entertaining criteria among people with a high auditory style level with respect to those with a low auditory style level. People with a high auditory style level perceive channels 1 or 2 as easier –p-value = 0.006– and more entertaining –p-value = 0.028–.

Finally, it is important to highlight the existence of a significant association –at a level of significance of 10%– among the perception of a more entertaining channel and a low or high kinaesthetic learning style level with a p-value of 0.054. Even though most of the people perceive channel 3 as more entertaining, some people with low kinaesthetic learning style levels perceive channels 1 and 2 as more entertaining –p-value = 0.054–.

Since the aim of this case study is to determine the possible variation in the perception of materials based on the communication channel used in addition to the influence and distribution of the participants’ learning styles and preferences for the different channels, the most relevant findings are presented below.

Material perception as per the channel

Significant differences were observed between the communication channels used to transmit the information –physical, sensory and emotional properties– through materials, as shown by the findings in Figs.  12 – 17 . This case study used two experimental types –mixed and blocked– in a view to understanding any differences when the channels are presented randomly or in a pre-set order C1, C2 and C3 –thereby expanding the channels and the quantity of stimuli provided–.

The findings were grouped based on the patterns shown by the scoring for the two types of experiments. Likewise, there are pairs of properties that coincide in the findings between the two experiments. On the one hand, those that show statistically significant differences with similar findings patterns such as: Elastic—Non Elastic, Sound absorbent—Sound insulating. And on the other hand, the properties where there are no differences between channels and the findings can be observed in the two experiments: Light—Heavy, Glossy—Matte and Reflective—Non Reflective. In the two cases, the channels where these significant differences appear with respect to the others are C2 –video– and C3 –physical sample– depending on the specific sensory property in the materials being assessed.

Upon comparing the findings from the two experiments, similarities are detected as concerns the values assigned as per the pair of properties; in other words, a large majority of the findings are in the same band –positive, neutral or negative values– both in mixed per person and blocked per person. The conclusion is that the level of the response is not so different between the mixed experiment and the blocked experiment.

This statement gives rise to another relevant conclusion. Upon analysing the graphs in detail, the findings show that expanding and opening up a channel –following the order of C1, C2 and then C3– does not affect the people’s perception much. Thus, the participants score and perceive the material as per the quantity of stimuli and information delivered by the specific communication channel without the order thereof affecting their perception and respective assessment. In other words, if a person perceives a material in C3 in a certain way, the sensorial assessment continues to be the same irrespective of whether interaction with it takes place in the first or final step.

Learning styles help determine the way in which participants learn or rather detect, collect and remember knowledge better (Cid et al., 2012 ). The distribution of learning styles co-exist in this case study with the three modes –auditory, visual and kinaesthetic– in all participants except nine people. Of these, four reflect a combination of kinaesthetic and auditory learning styles whereas the others maintain kinaesthetic with visual.

The participants’ learning styles may correlate with a more adequate communication channel for capturing information, thus fostering and promoting better use of their capabilities and possibilities (Huang, 2019 ). To understand any preference for communication channels, three criteria were established: easier to assess the properties, more entertaining and more pleasurable for their learning. The findings show a clear preference for C3 among all of them, although there are a few exceptions. As concerns the easier criteria, five people prefer C1—sheet– and five, C2 –video–. With respect to more entertaining, two participants show a preference for C1 and four for C2. Finally, as far as exceptions in learning styles, nine people like C1 better and six, C2. This again shows that people prefer interacting with physical samples.

According to the literature mentioned in the theoretical framework, learning styles and communication channels can be related based on the stimuli provided in the following way: the visual style with C1 –sheet–, auditory with C2 –video– and kinaesthetic with C3 –physical sample–. In any case, this study shows that people prefer C3 whenever possible in comparison with the other channels. This is due to the fact that C3 allows complete interaction among all senses as indicated by Karana et al. ( 2009 ), and therefore, suits all learning styles in one way or another. Even still, this research reflects significant differences in channel preference for the entertaining and/or easy criteria depending on the high or low auditory and kinaesthetic level. People with a low level kinaesthetic learning style find C1 and C2 more entertaining. This finding coincides with those with high levels of the auditory style as they also perceive C1 and C2 as easier and more entertaining.

The purpose of this research is to determine how perception of a material changes based on the communication channel used as well as the relationship between communication channels and learning styles.

This study proves that communication channels significantly influence the perception of materials as far as some properties. The order of channel presentation, whether a visual interaction C1, auditory C2 or complete C3, do not change the user’s perceptual assessment. In any case, there continues to be a tendency to prefer the channel that allows complete interaction with the physical sample.

A further aim is to contribute to the search for new ways of transmitting sensorial and emotional information from materials in today’s resources and context. This need has become even more evident with the current education situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to virtualize the different areas of learning under the New Normality.

Materials are elements with which people interact and which are a part of our daily lives. Therefore, understanding them in a holistic manner –sensory and technical properties– will help reinforce learning and teaching processes in these fields, foster their correct application and enable innovation in the field of materials. All of this first involves reassessing the sensory properties of the materials in the formation process. This research intends to open up a means for assisting with this new search for ideal formats given that it has been proven that sensory properties and the assessment thereof vary based on the channel. Moreover, different experiment types were proposed and tested in addition to tools for understanding the ways in which people learn such as VAK learning styles, for example. These resources and hybrid methods are valuable since they offer more data and perspectives in order to build an enriched and more varied research context.

Through the Perception Evaluation Kit workshop and the design-based research methods, further data have been contributed to the relationship between human perception and communication channels for transmitting information. The research presented could be extrapolated to other areas of knowledge transfer and learning beyond materials in order to determine the best channel or combination of channels for transmitting information. Of course, new and emerging formats such as videos with better image and sound quality, virtual reality and simulations of current contexts must always be taken into account.

Abella Garcia, A., Araya León, M. J., Clèries Garcia, L., & Marco-Almagro, L. l. (2019). Perception evaluation Kit : A case study with materials. The International Journal of Design Education , 13 (4), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v13i04/69-88 .

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning; creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1 . Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Businessballs. (2019).  VAK learning styles . Retrieved from https://www.businessballs.com/self-awareness/vak-learning-styles-self-test/#vak-learning-styles .

Calvillo Cortés, A. B., & Falcón Morales, L. E. (2016). Emotions and the urban lighting environment: A cross-cultural comparison. SAGE Open, 6 (1), 2158244016629708. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016629708

Article   Google Scholar  

Cid, F. M., Suazo, A. G., Ferro, E. F., & Aguilera González, J. (2012). Estilos de Aprendizaje Visual, Auditivo o Kinestésico de los Estudiantes de Educación Física de la UISEK de Chile. Revista Electrónica De Psicología Iztacala, 15 (2), 405–415.

Google Scholar  

Dirkx, J. M. (2011). The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. Educational and Child Psychology, 28 (1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles . Prentice Hall.

Huang, T. C. (2019). Do different learning styles make a difference when it comes to creativity? An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100 , 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.003

Huissoud, M. (2019).  Silkworms . Retrieved from  http://www.marlene-huissoud.com/from-insects-silkworms/ .

Jafari, S. M., & Abdollahzade, Z. (2019). Investigating the relationship between learning style and game type in the game-based learning environment. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09898-z

Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2009). Meanings of materials through sensorial properties and manufacturing processes. Materials and Design, 30 (7), 2778–2784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.09.028

Ladousse, G. P. (1982). Role play and simulation in language learning. Simulation/games for Learning, 12 (2), 51–60.

LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Brain mechanisms of emotion and emotional learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2 (2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4388(92)90011-9

Materfad. (n.d.).  Alusion . Retrieved from  http://es.materfad.com/material/803/alusion .

McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24 (4), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ihie.0000047415.48495.05

McKeachie, W. J. (2011). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers . Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Medina-Velandia, L. N., & Plazas-Gómez, L. A. (2018). Agentes Inteligentes y Modelo VARK, proponen Estrategias de Aprendizaje según la Manera en que Asimila un Individuo. Revista Educación en Ingeniería, 13 (26), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.26507/rei.v13n26.878 .

Meza, M., & Gómez, B. (2008). Estilos de Aprendizaje y Rendimiento Académico en los y las Estudiantes de la Institución Educativa Carlota Sánchez de la Ciudad de Pereira (Final degree thesis). Retrieved from  http://repositorio.utp.edu.co/dspace/handle/11059/985 .

Miller, P. (2001). Learning styles: The multimedia of the mind. Research Report.

Mora, M. C. G., Martínez, J. J. B., & González, J. P. C. (2015). Caracterización de Estilos de Aprendizaje y Canales de Percepción de Estudiantes Universitarios. Opción, 31 (3), 509–527.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37 (2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4

PolarMoss. (n.d.).  PolarMoss . Retrieved from de  https://www.polarmoss.fi/ .

Rognoli, V. (2010). A broad survey on expressive-sensorial characterization of materials for design education. METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 27 (2), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2010.2.16

Serrat-Brustenga, M., & Sunyer Lázaro, S. (2012). El Centro de Recursos Para el Aprendizaje y la Investigación (Crai) en Permanente Transformación: Servicios y Recursos para el Nuevo Usuario 2.0. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Servei De Biblioteques i Documentació, 3 , 1–10.

Swanson, L. J. (1995). Learning styles: A review of the literature . The Clarmont Graduate School. ERIC Document Reproduction Service Nº 387 067.

Tyng, C. M., Amin, H. U., Saad, M. N. M., & Malik, A. S. (2017). The influences of emotion on learning and memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 1454. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01454

van Kesteren, I. E. H. (2008). Product designers’ information needs in materials selection. Materials and Design, 29 (1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2006.11.008

VARK Learn Limited. (2020).  The VARK Modalities . Retrieved from https://vark-learn.com/introduction-to-vark/the-vark-modalities/ .

Wilkes, S., Wongsriruksa, S., Howes, P., Gamester, R., Witchel, H., Conreen, M., et al. (2016). Design tools for interdisciplinary translation of material experiences. Materials & Design, 90 , 1228–1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.04.013

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ELISAVA Barcelona School of Design and Engineering, ELISAVA Research, La Rambla 30-32, 08002, Barcelona, Spain

Ainoa Abella, María Araya León & Laura Clèries Garcia

Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya–BarcelonaTech, Barcelona, Spain

Ainoa Abella & Lluís Marco-Almagro

University of Santiago, Chile, Santiago, Chile

María Araya León

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ainoa Abella .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Abella, A., Araya León, M., Marco-Almagro, L. et al. Perception evaluation kit: a case study with materials and learning styles. Int J Technol Des Educ 32 , 1941–1962 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09676-4

Download citation

Accepted : 04 June 2021

Published : 15 August 2021

Issue Date : July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09676-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Communication channels
• Sensorial properties
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Free Resources

5 mini case studies about understanding and serving the customer

This article was originally published in the MarketingSherpa email newsletter .

Mini Case Study #1: 34% increase in conversion for powdered health drink company by helping customers come to their own conclusions

A single-product company that sells high-quality, all-natural, powdered health drinks engaged MECLABS Institute to help better understand their potential customers and increase the conversion rate of prospects reaching the homepage.

The original homepage took a claims-driven approach – it provided several bold statements about what the product would do for a customer with no information about the product to help the customer understand why it would work for them. Here is a look at the upper left of the original homepage.

Creative Sample #1: Upper left of original homepage for health drink company

The MECLABS team created a version of the homepage that took a conclusion-driven approach – instead only trying to convince potential customers with only bold claims about the product, the homepage copy included information about the product to help customers understand why the product would help them.

Creative Sample #2: Upper left of treatment homepage for health drink company

The team tested this version as the treatment against the original homepage (the control) to help better understand what communication style customers would respond to.

The treatment generated a 34% increase in conversion rate.

This experiment highlights a classic disconnect between customers and marketers. If you work in a company or with a client, you have intimate knowledge of the product and believe in its effectiveness. You spend all day thinking about it. You personally know some of the people who designed it. Your paycheck depends on the success of the product.

A customer does not have this same understanding or belief in the product. They have a significant gap in their knowledge about your product. Bold claims alone are not enough to close that gap. They have to understand why the product will work and come to their own conclusions about the company’s ability to deliver on its promises.

You can learn more about this experiment in The Conversion Heuristic Analysis: Overcoming the prospect’s perception gap from MarketingExperiments (MarketingSherpa’s sister publication).

Mini Case Study #2: Bags company increases conversion 191% by adding clarity to homepage

“I'm the CEO of Doubletake , a tennis and pickleball bag company, but I spent the majority of my career focused on messaging and research, consulting as a strategist for top brands for the last 10 plus years, and in-house prior to that. I'm almost embarrassed that I have this example to share, but I thankfully came to my senses!,” Shawna Gwin Krasts told me.

“It is interesting that crafting messaging/copy for products that aren't ‘your baby’ is so much easier – there is just more distance to see it for what it is. If this wasn't so near and dear to my heart, I would have caught it in a second.”

The team launched its homepage with only the headline “Sports Meets Style” over a photo of a bag. The headline was meant to differentiate the brand from competitors that were either only sporty or fashionable. Below the headline was a call-to-action (CTA) button with the word “shop.”

Creative Sample #3: Previous homepage copy for bag company

Internally it seemed obvious that the company sells tennis and pickleball bags since a bag was in the photo.

But they came to realize that it might not be as clear to website visitors. So the team added the subhead “Gorgeous Yet Functional Tennis and Pickleball Bags.” They also added the word “bags” to the CTA so it read “shop bags.”

Creative Sample #4: New homepage copy for bag company

These simple changes increased the website's conversion rate by 191%.

“It is so important for marketers to get out of their own heads,” Krasts said. “I suppose this is why I struggle with messaging so much for Doubletake. I am the target customer – I have the answers in my head and I suppose my natural curiosity isn't as strong. But clearly, I also have to remember that I've seen my homepage 10,000 more times than my customers, which means things that seem obvious to me, like the fact that Doubletake is a tennis brand not a reseller, might not be obvious.”

Mini Case Study #3: Online motorcycle gear retailer doubles conversion with personalized emails

There are ways to better tap into what customers perceive as valuable built into certain marketing channels. Email marketing is a great example. Marketers can build off information they have on the customer to send more relevant emails with information and products the customer is more likely to value.

"Very early in my marketing career I was taught, 'You are not the target audience' and told to try to see things from my customer's perspective. Empathizing with customers is a good start towards seeing products from the customers' perspective, but marketers really need to focus on quantifiable actions that can help identify customers' needs. That means continuous testing across messaging, price points, packaging, and every other aspect of a product. This is where personalization can really shine. Every time a marketer personalizes a message, it brings them closer to their customer and closes that gap," said Gretchen Scheiman, VP of Marketing, Sailthru.

For example, 80% of the email messages RevZilla sent were generic. But the website sells motorcycle parts and gear to a wide range of riders, each with their own preference in brand and riding style. The online motorcycle gear retailer partnered with Sailthru to better connect with customer motivations. The team started by upgrading the welcome series for new customers by personalizing the email messages based on the customers’ purchases and preferences.

The company has tested and added many new triggers to the site, and now has 177 different automation journeys that include triggers for browse and cart abandonment as well as automations for different product preferences, riding styles and manufacturer preferences.

The conversion rate from personalized email is double what RevZilla was getting for generic batch-and-blast sends. Automated experiences now account for 40% of email revenue. Triggered revenue is up 22% year-over-year and site traffic from triggers has increased 128% year-over-year.

"Customizing the buyer journey isn't about one long flow, but about lots of little trigger points and tests along the way. For any marketer that is intimidated about getting started with personalization, it's important to realize that it's more like a lot of small building blocks that create a whole experience. We started with a custom welcome series using testing and built from there. We're still adding new tests and new trigger points, but it's with the same concept that we started with,” said Andrew Lim, Director of Retention Marketing, RevZilla.

Mini Case Study #4: Pet protection network increases revenue 53% thanks to survey feedback

Huan makes smart tags for pets to help owners find their pets if they go missing. Initially, the company focused on the technical features in its homepage copy. For example, the tags don’t emit harmful radiation, are water-resistant and have a replaceable one-year battery.

From customer feedback surveys, the team discovered that customers purchased the product because they were worried they wouldn’t be able to find their pet if the pet went missing. This discovery prompted the team to change its messaging.

The new messaging on the homepage read, “Keep your pet safe and prevent heartbreak. Huan Smart Tags help you find your missing pet automatically.”

Revenue increased 53% increase following the change in messaging. “We immediately saw an increase in engagement on our website, with a lower bounce rate, higher click-through rate and a higher conversion rate. There were also a few people who messaged us on social media saying how our new message resonated with them,” said Gilad Rom, Founder, Huan.

Mini Case Study #5: Talking to new customers leads SaaS to change strategy, increase sales 18%

When Chanty launched, the marketing messages focused on pricing since the Saas company is 50% less expensive than the best-known competitor. However, when the team started talking to customers, they discovered most people had switched from the competitor for different reasons – ease of use, better functionalities in the free plan, better experience with the customer support team, and a better mobile app.

The team changed its marketing to focus around these product attributes and only listed pricing in the end as an additional benefit.

“It turned out that this was the way to go because we attracted people who wanted a better experience, rather than just customers who wanted to save money. After six months of implementing this new marketing and sales strategy, our sales grew by 18%,” said Jane Kovalkova, Chief Marketing Officer, Chanty.

Related resources

The Prospect’s Perception Gap: How to bridge the dangerous gap between the results we want and the results we have

Customer-First Marketing: Understanding customer pain and responding with action

Marketing Research Chart: How customer understanding impacts satisfaction

Improve Your Marketing

Join our thousands of weekly case study readers.

Enter your email below to receive MarketingSherpa news, updates, and promotions:

Note: Already a subscriber? Want to add a subscription? Click Here to Manage Subscriptions

Get Better Business Results With a Skillfully Applied Customer-first Marketing Strategy

The customer-first approach of MarketingSherpa’s agency services can help you build the most effective strategy to serve customers and improve results, and then implement it across every customer touchpoint.

Get headlines, value prop, competitive analysis, and more.

Marketer Vs Machine

Marketer Vs Machine: We need to train the marketer to train the machine.

Free Marketing Course

Become a Marketer-Philosopher: Create and optimize high-converting webpages (with this free online marketing course)

Project and Ideas Pitch Template

A free template to help you win approval for your proposed projects and campaigns

Six Quick CTA checklists

These CTA checklists are specifically designed for your team — something practical to hold up against your CTAs to help the time-pressed marketer quickly consider the customer psychology of your “asks” and how you can improve them.

Infographic: How to Create a Model of Your Customer’s Mind

You need a repeatable methodology focused on building your organization’s customer wisdom throughout your campaigns and websites. This infographic can get you started.

Infographic: 21 Psychological Elements that Power Effective Web Design

To build an effective page from scratch, you need to begin with the psychology of your customer. This infographic can get you started.

Receive the latest case studies and data on email, lead gen, and social media along with MarketingSherpa updates and promotions.

• Your Email Account
• Customer Service Q&A
• Search Library
• Content Directory:

Questions? Contact Customer Service at [email protected]

© 2000-2024 MarketingSherpa LLC, ISSN 1559-5137 Editorial HQ: MarketingSherpa LLC, PO Box 50032, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32240

The views and opinions expressed in the articles of this website are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect in any way the views of MarketingSherpa, its affiliates, or its employees.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Case Study Example

Perception Case Studies Samples For Students

191 samples of this type

During studying in college, you will definitely have to craft a bunch of Case Studies on Perception. Lucky you if putting words together and transforming them into meaningful content comes easy to you; if it's not the case, you can save the day by finding a previously written Perception Case Study example and using it as a model to follow.

This is when you will certainly find WowEssays' free samples collection extremely helpful as it embodies numerous skillfully written works on most various Perception Case Studies topics. Ideally, you should be able to find a piece that meets your requirements and use it as a template to build your own Case Study. Alternatively, our competent essay writers can deliver you a unique Perception Case Study model written from scratch according to your custom instructions.

Example Of Foundationalism Case Study

Humes concept case study examples, consumer behaviour case study examples.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your case study done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Sample Case Study On Organizational Behaviors

Introduction.

Organizational behavior is the of study that explores the collision that structures, groups and individuals, have on behavior within an organization for the intention of applying such information towards taming an organization's efficiency. It understands the employees’ role and them understanding the manager’s role in the accurate manner without misconception in favor of the organization. In this case study, a retail shop sells teddy bears and Clark the manager determines her personalities in her organization” (Giacobbe, 2009).

Maxine’s Clark’s personality

Dissociative identity disorder case study sample, operations management: customers complaint case case study examples, executive summary.

A business issues are defined by several factors including those which are internal and the external ones both of which defines its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In that respect, the SWOT analysis has been applied to identify the existing problems for the business in reference as well as in identifying suitable solutions for the problems.

For the business, some suitable quality improvement recommendations include

Example of case study on kansas city preventative patrol experiment, what is the study about, example of case study on dreaming, case study on swot analysis refers to an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities.

- Provide a SWOT analysis for this firm ensuring that core internal and external aspects are identified correctly in the right place

- Identify define and apply two motivation theories to illustrate the sources/causes of poor motivation

Incentive motivation theory

Data model case study examples, board of education v. amy rowley case study examples.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a Clause statute. Its main aim is to guarantee that all children with a disability access free and appropriate public education. Each district is given the mandate to create a specialised education program for each child with a disability. An individual and a county have to satisfy certain requirements to obtain funds from the Education for all Handicapped Children board. The petitioner Amy Rowley demanded this hearing after being denied a sign interpreter in her regular classrooms in Furnace Woods. Keywords: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, special education, disability, individualised education program

The Background of the Case

Free case study on nikes environmental sustainability, how music influenced other music case study sample, customer inserts tutor’s name.

Introduction Language is made up of many symbols. The way we organize the symbols enable our communication. Language allows self reflection, organization of thoughts and enables hypothetical thinking as explained.

Self-reflection

Case study on an unmanageable case management quandary, example of laboratory technician case study.

The numerous small round objects found in the urine sample could be glucose and ketones. In urine, no or little glucose is found. However, in conditions of kidney damage and uncontrolled diabetes, glucose is evidenced in urine. Ketones develop in urine in cases where there is incomplete breakdown of fats. Ketones may also develop in cases where vomiting or diarrhea causes starvation. These small round objects may also be crystals from components such as calcium oxalate.

Importance Of Principle Based Conceptual Framework In Financial Reporting Case Study

Example of changing consumer behavior using marketing case study, example of human resource management case study, a force field diagram.

A Multiple Cause Diagram

An Influence Diagram

Genetic Testing At Workplace Case Study

Why globalizations lead to clash of civilization case study examples, introduction, case study on forensic accounting and fraud examination.

This case study focuses on identifying fraudulent issues taking place in the given four situation of Forensic Accounting. It identifies the issue on hand for every situation and goes further to discuss the in details the presence of elements such as coercion, collusion, and concealment. Nevertheless, the paper utilizes the fraud triangle to explain how the fraudulent acts are committed. The conclusion for each situation discusses the possible ways of addressing the issues being identified.

Good Example Of Study Case – Septemebr 11 2001 Case Study

Free sony targets laptop consumers in china case study example, good ethical analysis case study example, analyzing mary’s case using the social learning theory case studies example, case study on court ruling.

EEOC v. Watkins Motor Line Inc.,

Free Case Study About Forewords

Political science case study sample.

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Enterpreneurial Marketing Case Study Examples

Free case study on students listen about 55 of their time and workers about 60 of their time when compared, chapter 7 – listening (19 questions).

1. Percentage that listeners remember after hearing a message Right after hearing a message only about 50% of people remember the message. Within 8 hours the 50% drops to 35%, after 2 months only 25% remember the original message. (Page 241) 2. Listen more than any other type of communication 3. Questioning and paraphrasing These are two techniques that show a speaker the listener is attentive. They also help the listener make sure he/she understands what the speaker is trying to say. They need to be learned and practiced to do well.

Questioning on pages 249 and 250

Good Case Study On Social Interaction At The Micro Level: The Sociology Of Subjective Experience

Bariatric surgery: a sample case study for inspiration & mimicking, free roles and resource contributions of customers in value co-creation case study sample, issue identification and root cause analysis:, marbury vs. madison case study sample, example of auto fleet discount case study, cross-cultural management case study example, panera bread marketing case studies example, green mountain resort case study case studies example.

Which of the six change images discussed in this chapter can be identified in the assumptions about managing turnover that were held by

Inspiring Case Study About De-Gendering Media, Ideology, Hegemony, And Representation

Sensory development in infancy case studies example, social exclusion in business and society: twitter’s exclusion of african-american employees case study, mountain man brewing co. bringing the brand to light case analysis case study examples, situation analysis, administrative law case studies examples, example of who is telling the story case study.

Questions to consider

Free Red Bull: Building Brand Equity In Non-Traditional Ways Case Study Sample

Red Bull was established by Dietrich Mateschitz in year 1985. Company introduces energy drink exclusively in Austria in year 1987. After five years of exclusive operation in Austria Market, Company expanded its business in European market. Company decided to slowly enter into foreign markets in order to create buzz and anticipation. This paper intends to analyze brand equity and other related aspects of Red Bull.

Erie Railroad V Tompkins Case Study Examples

Erie Railroad v Tompkins was a fairly simple case in which the Supreme Court was called upon to give an interpretation as to the application of state common law over federal common law in cases of diversity jurisdiction. In addition, the case is celebrated for its empowerment of the state common law as it clearly denied Congress the power to set federal common law, an action it perceived as unconstitutional.

Federal Court’s obligation to state court decisions prior to Erie Railroad v Tompkins

Auto fleet discount case case study, systems and design perspective, total mark: ________/15 case study examples, 3004iba seminar preparation – no referencing necessary, case study on start working with a first hypothesis according to the algorithm you provided in.

I choose the following 3 hypothesis to test: - Marriages where the man is older than the woman will be perceived as being more satisfying than marriages where the woman is older than the man. - There will be a positive association between perceived level of relationship satisfaction and optimism. - There will be a positive association between perceived level of relationship satisfaction and relationship longevity

The Media's Use Of Loaded Words: Especially When It Comes To The War On Terror Case Study Examples

Research on published research articles case study, annotated bibliography.

Cailleba, P., & Casteran, H. (2009). A quantitative study on the fair trade coffee consumer. Journal of Applied Business Research, 25(6), 31-46. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227583556?accountid=45049

This article draws attention on the manners in which ethical behaviors

Case study on leadership motivation and the case of alex stephanie, a brief study.

Leadership, Motivation and the Case of Alex & Stephanie: A Brief Study

Example Of Case Study On The Langley Files

The langley files.

CIA’s Perception of Knowledge Management

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Case Study Sample

Post-traumatic stress disorder, case study on leadership and organization, a case study on fridgecom.

Question 1: Using specific examples drawn from the case study, critically discuss different styles of leadership and potential behavioural responses.

Case Study On Managing People Information And Knowledge

Using specific examples drawn from the case study, critically discuss different styles of leadership and potential behavioural responses.

In today’s global economy, leadership and organizational behaviour are important factors that can determine the success of organizations. However, the methods used by leaders to influence employees for achieving goals are a matter of contention among researchers (Skansi, 2000). In answering this question, various leadership styles that motivate employees to increase productivity levels have been discussed. This answer attempts to focus on the various modes of leadership and potential behavioural responses to them in terms of motivation, communication, perception, and teamwork.

Understanding Leadership

Case study on dittenhoefer's fine china, staffing shortage issues case study samples, issues facing portland police bureau.

The Portland Police Bureau in Oregon, similar to other police departments, faces some policing issues that hinder the effective performance of its mandate. Examples of the salient issues facing Portland Police Bureau include ethical and effective policing issues, domestic violence issues, drug and substance abuse, gang problems, low police staffing, gun violence, hiring and training problems negative public perception of the bureau and high rates of crime.

Expertly Crafted Case Study On Domestic Violence

Strategic hospitality management: morrison’s dilemma case study.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Medical abortion:...

Medical abortion: Taking first tablet at home after 12 weeks of pregnancy is safe, study reports

• Related content
• Peer review
• Gareth Iacobucci

Women who began the process of medical abortion at home after 12 weeks of pregnancy were more likely to complete their care in hospital without an overnight stay than those who started in hospital, a study published in the Lancet has reported. 1

The randomised controlled trial of 435 women found that 71% (156 of 220) of patients who took the first dose of misoprostol at home spent fewer than nine hours in hospital (the cut off for day case procedures) compared with 46% (99 of 215) of patients who took the first dose of misoprostol at hospital (difference 24.9%; 95% confidence interval 15.4 to 34.3; …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Assessing the impact of on-farm biosecurity coaching on farmer perception and farm biosecurity status in belgian poultry production.

Simple Summary

1. introduction, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. study design, 2.2. farm selection and recruitment, 2.3. farmer data collection, 2.3.1. quantification of farm biosecurity, 2.3.2. adkar ® profiling of farmers, 2.4. coaching methodology, 2.5. data analysis, 3.1. farm and farmer characteristics, 3.2. biosecurity, 3.3. adkar ® profiles, 3.4. uptake of actions, 3.5. biosecurity adoption, 3.6. attitude change, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Dewulf, J.; Van Immerseel, F. General principles of biosecurity in animal production and veterinary medicine. In Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: From Principles to Practice ; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2018; pp. 63–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaillancourt, J.-P. Can we talk? The role of communication in regional disease control. Rev. Can. d’Aviculture 2009 , 96 , 16–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Limbergen, T.; Dewulf, J.; Klinkenberg, M.; Ducatelle, R.; Gelaude, P.; Méndez, J.; Heinola, K.; Papasolomontos, S.; Szeleszczuk, P.; Maes, D. Scoring biosecurity in European conventional broiler production. Poult. Sci. 2018 , 97 , 74–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Garzon, A.; Portillo, R.; Habing, G.; Silva-Del-Rio, N.; Karle, B.M.; Pereira, R.V. Antimicrobial stewardship on the dairy: Evaluating an on-farm framework for training farmworkers. J. Dairy Sci. 2023 , 106 , 4171–4183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bleich, E.G.; Pagani, P.; Honhold, N. Progress towards practical options for improving biosecurity of small-scale poultry producers. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2009 , 65 , 211–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lohr, J.A.; Ingram, D.L.; Dudley, S.M.; Lawton, E.L.; Donowitz, L.G. Hand washing in pediatric ambulatory settings. An inconsistent practice. Am. J. Dis. Child. 1991 , 145 , 1198–1199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wurtz, R.; Moye, G.; Jovanovic, B. Handwashing machines, handwashing compliance, and potential for cross-contamination. Am. J. Infect. Control 1994 , 22 , 228–230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Conly, J.M.; Hill, S.; Ross, J.; Lertzman, J.; Louie, T.J. Handwashing practices in an intensive care unit: The effects of an educational program and its relationship to infection rates. Am. J. Infect. Control 1989 , 17 , 330–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Racicot, M.; Venne, D.; Durivage, A.; Vaillancourt, J.P. Evaluation of strategies to enhance biosecurity compliance on poultry farms in Québec: Effect of audits and cameras. Prev. Vet. Med. 2012 , 103 , 208–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tilli, G.; Galuppo, F.; Grilli, G.; Laconi, A.; Piccirillo, A. Experiences of Coaching as Supporting Measure to Improve Biosecurity in Italian Poultry Farms. 2023. Available online: https://air.unimi.it/handle/2434/999403 (accessed on 10 December 2023).
• Tilli, G.; Laconi, A.; Galuppo, F.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Piccirillo, A. Assessing biosecurity compliance in poultry farms: A survey in a densely populated poultry area in north east Italy. Animals 2022 , 12 , 1409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Collineau, L.; Stärk, K.D.C. How to motivate farmers to implement biosecurity measures. In Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: From Principles to Practice , 1st ed.; Dewulf, J., Van Immerseel, F., Eds.; Acco Uitgeverij: Leuven, Belgium, 2018; pp. 96–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caekebeke, N.; Ringenier, M.; Jonquiere, F.J.; Tobias, T.J.; Postma, M.; van den Hoogen, A.; Houben, M.A.; Velkers, F.C.; Sleeckx, N.; Stegeman, A. Coaching belgian and dutch broiler farmers aimed at antimicrobial stewardship and disease prevention. Antibiotics 2021 , 10 , 590. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marcdante, K.; Simpson, D. Choosing when to advise, coach, or mentor. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2018 , 10 , 227–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Garforth, C. Livestock keepers’ reasons for doing and not doing things which governments, vets and scientists would like them to do. Zoonoses Public Health 2015 , 62 , 29–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kristensen, E.; Jakobsen, E.B. Danish dairy farmers’ perception of biosecurity. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011 , 99 , 122–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Delabbio, J. How farm workers learn to use and practice biosecurity. J. Ext. 2006 , 44 , 6FEA1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies, R.H.; Wray, C. Observations on disinfection regimens used on Salmonella enteritidis infected poultry units. Poult. Sci. 1995 , 74 , 638–647. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jimenez, C.E.P.; Keestra, S.; Tandon, P.; Cumming, O.; Pickering, A.J.; Moodley, A.; Chandler, C.I. Biosecurity and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in animal agricultural settings for reducing infection burden, antibiotic use, and antibiotic resistance: A One Health systematic review. Lancet Planet. Health 2023 , 7 , e418–e434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Houben, M.A.M.; Caekebeke, N.; van den Hoogen, A.; Ringenier, M.; Tobias, T.J.; Jonquiere, F.J.; Sleeckx, N.; Velkers, F.C.; Stegeman, J.A.; Dewulf, J.; et al. The ADKAR ® change management model for farmer profiling with regard to antimicrobial stewardship in livestock production. Vlaams Diergeneeskd. Tijdschr. 2020 , 89 , 309–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amalraj, A.; Van Meirhaeghe, H.; Lefort, A.-C.; Rousset, N.; Grillet, J.; Spaans, A.; Devesa, A.; Sevilla-Navarro, S.; Tilli, G.; Piccirillo, A. Factors Affecting Poultry Producers’ Attitudes towards Biosecurity. Animals 2024 , 14 , 1603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gelaude, P.; Schlepers, M.; Verlinden, M.; Laanen, M.; Dewulf, J. Biocheck. UGent: A quantitative tool to measure biosecurity at broiler farms and the relationship with technical performances and antimicrobial use. Poult. Sci. 2014 , 93 , 2740–2751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alloui, N.; Sellaoui, S.; Ayachi, A.; Bennoune, O. Evaluation of biosecurity practices in a laying hens farm using Biocheck. UGent. Multidiscip. Sci. J. 2021 , 3 , 2021014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Caekebeke, N.; Jonquiere, F.J.; Ringenier, M.; Tobias, T.J.; Postma, M.; Van den Hoogen, A.; Houben, M.A.; Velkers, F.C.; Sleeckx, N.; Stegeman, J.A. Comparing farm biosecurity and antimicrobial use in high-antimicrobial-consuming broiler and pig farms in the Belgian–Dutch border region. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020 , 7 , 558455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cuc, N.T.K.; Dinh, N.C.; Quyen, N.T.L.; Tuan, H.M. Biosecurity level practices in pig and poultry production in Vietnam. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2020 , 8 , 1068–1074. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ibrahim, N.; Chantziaras, I.; Chakma, S.; Islam, S.S.; Amalraj, A.; Caekebeke, N.; Ferreira, H.d.C.; Dewulf, J. Biocheck.UGent: A Risk-Based Tool to Assess the Status of Biosecurity in Backyard Poultry in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. 2023. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4617694 (accessed on 10 December 2023).
• Ibrahim, N.; Chantziaras, I.; Mohsin, M.A.S.; Boyen, F.; Fournié, G.; Islam, S.S.; Berge, A.C.; Caekebeke, N.; Joosten, P.; Dewulf, J. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of antimicrobial usage and biosecurity on broiler and Sonali farms in Bangladesh. Prev. Vet. Med. 2023 , 217 , 105968. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tanquilut, N.C.; Espaldon, M.V.O.; Eslava, D.F.; Ancog, R.C.; Medina, C.D.R.; Paraso, M.G.V.; Domingo, R.D. Biosecurity assessment of layer farms in Central Luzon, Philippines. Prev. Vet. Med. 2020 , 175 , 104865. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tanquilut, N.C.; Espaldon, M.V.O.; Eslava, D.F.; Ancog, R.C.; Medina, C.D.R.; Paraso, M.G.V.; Domingo, R.D.; Dewulf, J. Quantitative assessment of biosecurity in broiler farms using Biocheck.UGent in Central Luzon, Philippines. Poult. Sci. 2020 , 99 , 3047–3059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Amalraj, A.; van Meirhaeghe, H.; Caekebeke, N.; Creve, R.; Lefort, A.-C.; Rousset, N.; Spaans, A.; Devesa, A.; Tilli, G.; Piccirillo, A. Development and use of Biocheck. UGentTM scoring system to quantify biosecurity in conventional indoor (turkey, duck, breeder) and free-range (layer and broiler) poultry farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 2024 , 230 , 106288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hiatt, J. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community ; Prosci: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shepherd, M.L.; Harris, M.L.; Chung, H.; Himes, E.M. Using the Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement Model to build a shared governance culture. J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2014 , 4 , 90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tilli, G.; Laconi, A.; Galuppo, F.; Grilli, G.; Żbikowski, A.; Amalraj, A.; Piccirillo, A. Supporting Measures to Improve Biosecurity within Italian Poultry Production. Animals 2024 , 14 , 1734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Turner, L.; Irvine, L. Tasmanian dairy farmers and the pasture management learning process: Case study findings on the role of coaching in achieving practice change. Rural. Ext. Innov. Syst. J. 2017 , 13 , 31–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gosling, R.; Martelli, F.; Wintrip, A.; Sayers, A.; Wheeler, K.; Davies, R. Assessment of producers’ response to Salmonella biosecurity issues and uptake of advice on laying hen farms in England and Wales. Br. Poult. Sci. 2014 , 55 , 559–568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brennan, M.L.; Christley, R.M. Cattle producers’ perceptions of biosecurity. BMC Vet. Res. 2013 , 9 , 71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ellis-Iversen, J.; Cook, A.J.; Watson, E.; Nielen, M.; Larkin, L.; Wooldridge, M.; Hogeveen, H. Perceptions, circumstances and motivators that influence implementation of zoonotic control programs on cattle farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010 , 93 , 276–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Garforth, C. Effective communication to improve udder health: Can social science help? In Udder Health and Communication ; Hogeveen, H., Lam, T.J.G.M., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 55–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garforth, C.J.; Bailey, A.P.; Tranter, R.B. Farmers’ attitudes to disease risk management in England: A comparative analysis of sheep and pig farmers. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013 , 110 , 456–466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• van Staaveren, N.; Leishman, E.M.; Adams, S.M.; Wood, B.J.; Harlander-Matauschek, A.; Baes, C.F. Housing and Management of Turkey Flocks in Canada. Animals 2020 , 10 , 1159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lam, T.J.; Jansen, J.; van den Borne, B.H.; Renes, R.J.; Hogeveen, H. What veterinarians need to know about communication to optimise their role as advisors on udder health in dairy herds. N. Z. Vet. J. 2011 , 59 , 8–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vaarst, M.; Nissen, T.B.; Østergaard, S.; Klaas, I.C.; Bennedsgaard, T.W.; Christensen, J. Danish stable schools for experiential common learning in groups of organic dairy farmers. J. Dairy Sci. 2007 , 90 , 2543–2554. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roche, S.M.; Jones-Bitton, A.; Meehan, M.; Von Massow, M.; Kelton, D.F. Evaluating the effect of Focus Farms on Ontario dairy producers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward control of Johne’s disease. J. Dairy. Sci. 2015 , 98 , 5222–5240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cui, B.; Liu, Z.P. Determinants of knowledge and biosecurity preventive behaviors for highly pathogenic avian influenza risk among Chinese poultry farmers. Avian Dis. 2016 , 60 , 480–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Scott, A.B.; Singh, M.; Groves, P.; Hernandez-Jover, M.; Barnes, B.; Glass, K.; Moloney, B.; Black, A.; Toribio, J.A. Biosecurity practices on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Performance and perceptions of farmers. PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0195582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Elliott, J.; Sneddon, J.; Lee, J.A.; Blache, D. Producers have a positive attitude toward improving lamb survival rates but may be influenced by enterprise factors and perceptions of control. Livest. Sci. 2011 , 140 , 103–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Enticott, G.; Franklin, A.; Van Winden, S. Biosecurity and food security: Spatial strategies for combating bovine tuberculosis in the UK. Geogr. J. 2012 , 178 , 327–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jansen, J.; Wessels, R.J.; Lam, T.J.G.M. Understanding the mastitis mindset: Applying social psychology in practice. In Proceedings of the National Mastitis Council 55th Annual Meeting, Glendale, AZ, USA, 30 January–2 February 2016; pp. 5–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nespeca, R.; Vaillancourt, J.P.; Morrow, W.E. Validation of a poultry biosecurity survey. Prev. Vet. Med. 1997 , 31 , 73–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kristensen, E.; Jakobsen, E.B. Challenging the myth of the irrational dairy farmer; understanding decision-making related to herd health. N. Z. Vet. J. 2011 , 59 , 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Richens, I.F.; Houdmont, J.; Wapenaar, W.; Shortall, O.; Kaler, J.; O’Connor, H.; Brennan, M.L. Application of multiple behaviour change models to identify determinants of farmers’ biosecurity attitudes and behaviours. Prev. Vet. Med. 2018 , 155 , 61–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pike, T. Understanding Behaviours in a Farming Context: Bringing Theoretical and Applied Evidence Together from across Defra and Highlighting Policy Relevance and Implications for Future Research ; Food, and Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996 , 17 , 27–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• East, I. Adoption of biosecurity practices in the Australian poultry industries. Aust. Vet. J. 2007 , 85 , 107–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pritchard, K.; Wapenaar, W.; Brennan, M.L. Cattle veterinarians’ awareness and understanding of biosecurity. Vet. Rec. 2015 , 176 , 546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sewell, A.; Gray, D.; Blair, H.; Kemp, P.; Kenyon, P.; Morris, S.; Wood, B. Hatching new ideas about herb pastures: Learning together in a community of New Zealand farmers and agricultural scientists. Agric. Syst. 2014 , 125 , 63–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Souillard, R.; Allain, V.; Dufay-Lefort, A.C.; Rousset, N.; Amalraj, A.; Spaans, A.; Zbikowski, A.; Piccirillo, A.; Sevilla-Navarro, S.; Kovács, L. Biosecurity implementation on large-scale poultry farms in Europe: A qualitative interview study with farmers. Prev. Vet. Med. 2024 , 224 , 106119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olsen, S.J.; Laosiritaworn, Y.; Pattanasin, S.; Prapasiri, P.; Dowell, S.F. Poultry-handling practices during avian influenza outbreak, Thailand. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005 , 11 , 1601–1603. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mankad, A. Psychological influences on biosecurity control and farmer decision-making. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016 , 36 , 40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardwell, J.M.; Van Winden, S.; Beauvais, W.; Mastin, A.; De Glanville, W.A.; Hardstaff, J.; Booth, R.E.; Fishwick, J.; Pfeiffer, D.U. Assessing the impact of tailored biosecurity advice on farmer behaviour and pathogen presence in beef herds in England and Wales. Prev. Vet. Med. 2016 , 135 , 9–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chomyn, O.; Wapenaar, W.; Richens, I.F.; Reyneke, R.A.; Shortall, O.; Kaler, J.; Brennan, M.L. Assessment of a joint farmer-veterinarian discussion about biosecurity using novel social interaction analyses. Prev. Vet. Med. 2023 , 212 , 105831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raasch, S.; Collineau, L.; Postma, M.; Backhans, A.; Sjölund, M.; Belloc, C.; Emanuelson, U.; Beilage, E.g.; Stärk, K.; Dewulf, J. Effectiveness of alternative measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in pig production in four European countries. Porc. Health Manag. 2020 , 6 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Burns, T.; Guerin, M.; Kelton, D.; Ribble, C.; Stephen, C. On-farm Study of Human Contact Networks to Document Potential Pathways for Avian Influenza Transmission between Commercial Poultry Farms in Ontario, Canada. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2011 , 58 , 510–518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Carvalho Ferreira, H.C.; Tilli, G.; Amalraj, A.; Van Meirhaeghe, H.; Rousset, N.; Grillet, J.; Dewulf, J.; Piccirillo, A.; Wauters, E. Costs of improving biosecurity in poultry holdings, after applying different supporting measures, in seven European countries. In Proceedings of the ISVEE 2024, Sydney, Australia, 11–15 November 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryk, A.S. Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educ. Leadersh. 2003 , 60 , 40. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Amalraj, A.; Van Meirhaeghe, H.; Chantziaras, I.; Dewulf, J. Assessing the Impact of On-Farm Biosecurity Coaching on Farmer Perception and Farm Biosecurity Status in Belgian Poultry Production. Animals 2024 , 14 , 2498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172498

Amalraj A, Van Meirhaeghe H, Chantziaras I, Dewulf J. Assessing the Impact of On-Farm Biosecurity Coaching on Farmer Perception and Farm Biosecurity Status in Belgian Poultry Production. Animals . 2024; 14(17):2498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172498

Amalraj, Arthi, Hilde Van Meirhaeghe, Ilias Chantziaras, and Jeroen Dewulf. 2024. "Assessing the Impact of On-Farm Biosecurity Coaching on Farmer Perception and Farm Biosecurity Status in Belgian Poultry Production" Animals 14, no. 17: 2498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14172498

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 360 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals