CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 466Visual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFace Recognition and Perception

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 392 of the 392 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches

Norman, Joel·2002·Behavioral and Brain Sciences
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x0200002x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The two contrasting theoretical approaches to visual perception, the constructivist and the ecological, are briefly presented and illustrated through their analyses of space and size perception. Earlier calls for their reconciliation and unification are reviewed. Neurophysiological, neuropsychological, and psychophysical evidence for the existence of two quite distinct visual systems, the ventral and the dorsal, is presented. These two perceptual systems differ in their functions; the ventral system's central function is that of identification, while the dorsal system is mainly engaged in the visual control of motor behavior. The strong parallels between the ecological approach and the functioning of the dorsal system, and between the constructivist approach and the functioning of the ventral system are noted. It is also shown that the experimental paradigms used by the proponents of these two approaches match the functions of the respective visual systems. A dual-process approach to visual perception emerges from this analysis, with the ecological-dorsal process transpiring mainly without conscious awareness, while the constructivist-ventral process is normally conscious. Some implications of this dual-process approach to visual-perceptual phenomena are presented, with emphasis on space perception.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x0200002x

Cites

392 of 392 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 392 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 466

Related

Metadata

Authors
Norman, J.
Affiliations
University of Haifa (IL)
Corresponding author
Norman, Joel
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2002-02
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
73-96
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
DOI
10.1017/s0140525x0200002x
OpenAlex
W2162550962
Cited by
466
References
392
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 19
FWCI
8.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 356 d)
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
visual perception, constructivism, ecological approach, ventral stream, dorsal stream, dual-process theory, spatial perception, size perception, unconscious perception, object identification
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Awareness, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Orientation, Psychological Theory, Psychomotor Performance, Psychophysics, Size Perception, Social Environment, Space Perception, Visual Pathways

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review