Search

This study investigates systematic individual differences in the way observers perceive different kinds of surface properties and their relationship to the dress, which shows striking individual differences in colour perception. We tested whether these individual differences have a common source, namely differences in perceptual strategies according to which observers attribute features in two-dimensional images to surfaces or to their illumination. First, we reanalysed data from two previous experiments on the dress and colour constancy. The comparison of the two experiments revealed that the colour perception of the dress is strongly related to individual differences in colour constancy. Second, two online surveys measured individual differences in the perception of colour-ambiguous images including the dress, in colour constancy, in gloss perception, in the subjective grey-point, in colour naming, and in the perception of an image with ambiguous shading. The results of the surveys replicated and extended previous findings according to which individual differences in the colour perception of the dress are due to implicit assumptions about the illumination. However, results also showed that the individual differences for other phenomena were independent of the dress and of each other. Overall, these results suggest that the striking individual differences in dress colour perception are due to individual differences in the interpretation of illumination cues to achieve colour constancy. At the same time, they undermine the idea of an overall perceptual strategy that encompasses other phenomena more generally related to the interpretation of illumination and surface properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Skill, Corporality and Alerting Capacity in an Account of Sensory Consciousness," by J. Kevin O'Regan and Erik Myin is presented.

When do infants start to understand that they can grasp an object by its handle when the interesting part is out of reach? Whereas it is known from preferential looking tasks that already at three months of age infants show surprise when all parts of an object do not move together, little is known about when infants are able to use such knowledge in an active grasp situation. To answer this question we presented six, eight, and 10 month-old infants in a cross-sectional and a longitudinal study with a white cardboard handle within reach and a bright ball at the end of the handle and out of reach. A trick condition, where the handle and the ball seem attached but were not, was added to get an indication of the infant's expectation by observing a possible surprise reaction. Results show that 6-month-olds' most frequent first behaviors consisted in pointing toward the ball without grasping the handle, or grasping the handle without looking at the ball until it moved. In addition, they often did not look surprised in the trick condition. Eight- and 10-month-olds most often grasped the handle while looking at the ball, and showed clear surprise in the trick condition. This was interpreted as showing that around eight or 10 months, infants take a significant step in understanding the cohesiveness of composite objects during grasping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated how repeated, five-minute familiarization sessions occurring once a week over a 6-week period influenced infants’ knowledge about the functional properties of a rake-like tool and their ability to use it for retrieving an out of reach object by 16 months of age. We found that infants, who were not allowed to touch the rake, but only to observe an adult retrieve an object with it, improved their performance. On the other hand, infants who were allowed to manually manipulate the rake and touch and move other objects with it did not improve their performance. The results, which were replicated in a string-pulling task, suggest that, although both motor and cognitive limitations affect performance, it is rather cognitive limitations that prevent infants from understanding the functional properties of the tool and from succeeding in such tool-use tasks. Furthermore, infants can overcome these cognitive limitations with only a few, brief demonstrations spaced over several weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]