Psychological Research

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 199–201 | Cite as

PDP and Gestalt: An integration?

  • Cees van Leeuwen
Article

Summary

The possibility of a synthesis between parallel distributed processing approaches (PDP) and Gestalt psychology is discussed. The empiricist outlook of PDP is an obstacle to such a synthesis. Gestalt's belief in organization of the psychological field as the basic principle is not shared by the PDP approach. It is claimed that, nevertheless, Gestalt psychology can use PDP techniques for modeling organization processes, provided that some constraints are obeyed. From a PDP point of view, importing Gestalt constraints could be a useful strategy for obtaining testable predictions.

References

  1. Boselie F, & Leeuwenberg, E. (1986). A test of the minimum principle requires a perceptual coding system. Perception, 15, 331–354.Google Scholar
  2. Buffart, H. (1986). Gestalt qualities, memory structure, and minimum principles. In F. Klix & H. Hagendorf (Eds.), Human memory and cognitive capabilities (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Buffart, H. (1987) Principles of invariance and memory structure. Paper presented at the 2nd Meeting of the ESCP, Madrid.Google Scholar
  4. Ehrenfels, C. (1980) Über Gestaltqualitäten. Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 14, 249–292.Google Scholar
  5. Epstein, W. (1988). Has the time come to rehabilitate Gestalt theory? Psychological Research, 50, 2–6.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. (1980). Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 63–109.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Hatfield, G. C., and Epstein, W. (1985). The status of the minimum principle in the theoretical analysis of visual perception. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 155–186.Google Scholar
  9. Koffka, K. (1935) (3rd impression 1950) Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Leeuwen, C. van (1988). Representational constraints and the law of Prägnanz. Proceedings of the Fechner Symposium. Leipzig (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Leeuwen, C. van, Buffart, H., & Vegt, J. van der (1988). Sequence influence on the organization of meaningless serial stimuli: economy after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 481–502.Google Scholar
  12. Leeuwenberg, E. (1971) A perceptual language for visual and auditory patterns. American Journal of Psychology, 84, 307–349.Google Scholar
  13. Leeuwenberg, E., and Buffart, H. (1983). An outline of coding theory: a summary of related experiments. In H.-G. Geissler, H. F. J. M. Buffart, E. L. J. Leeuwenberg, and V. Sarris (Eds.), Modern issues in perception. Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Massaro, D. W. (1988). Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 213–234.Google Scholar
  15. Mellink H., & Buffart, H. (1986). Abstract code network as a model of perceptual memory. Pattern Recognition, 20, 143–154.Google Scholar
  16. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Vegt, J. van der, Buffart, H., & Leeuwen, C. van (1989). The “Structural Memory”: a network model for human perception of serial objects. Psychological Research, 50, (this issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cees van Leeuwen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology, Department of PsychonomyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations