Cited by 106Visual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceMultisensory perception and integration

Understanding vision in wholly empirical terms

Open access
Purves, Dale, Wojtach, William T., Lotto, R. Beau·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

This article considers visual perception, the nature of the information on which perceptions seem to be based, and the implications of a wholly empirical concept of perception and sensory processing for vision science. Evidence from studies of lightness, brightness, color, form, and motion all indicate that, because the visual system cannot access the physical world by means of retinal light patterns as such, what we see cannot and does not represent the actual properties of objects or images. The phenomenology of visual perceptions can be explained, however, in terms of empirical associations that link images whose meanings are inherently undetermined to their behavioral significance. Vision in these terms requires fundamentally different concepts of what we see, why, and how the visual system operates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1012178108

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Non-Bayesian accounts based on ecological constraints or perceptual heuristics offer equally plausible, and often more parsimonious, explanations of visual illusions.

    “In many cases, non-Bayesian accounts based on ecological constraints or perceptual heuristics offer equally plausible, and often more parsimonious, explanations (Purves et al. 2011).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Purves et al. 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Purves, D., Wojtach, W. T., & Lotto, R. B.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-03-07
Volume
108
Issue
supplement_3
Pages
15588-15595
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2113583161
Cited by
106
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
visual perception, sensory processing, lightness perception, brightness perception, color perception, shape perception, motion perception, fundus images, phenomenology of perception
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Light, Models, Biological, Motion, Photic Stimulation, Vision, Ocular, Visual Perception

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