Psychological Research

, Volume 52, Issue 2–3, pp 145–152 | Cite as

Perceptual-learning systems as conservative structures: Is economy an attractor?

  • Cees van Leeuwen

Summary

It is discussed whether information-processing or connectionist models might explain the law ofPrägnanz under constraints resulting from a physical interpretation of these models. An information-processing approach is contrasted with thermodynamics and, finally, an alternative approach more directly inspired by Gestalt is discussed. It is argued that this model could be physically realized with relatively moderate requirements on the substrate in terms of information-processing resources.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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: North Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Dretske, F. (1983). Précis of Knowledge and the Flow of Information.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 55–63.Google Scholar
  3. Epstein, W. (1988). Has the time come to rehabilitate Gestalt theory?Psychological Research, 50, 2–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gottschaldt, K. (1929). Über den Einfluß der Erfahrung auf die Wahrnehmung von Figuren: II.Psychologische Forschung, 12, 1–87.Google Scholar
  5. Guthke, J., Räder, E., Caruso, M., & Schmidt K.-D. (1990). Entwicklung eines adaptiven computergestützten Lemtests auf der Basis der strukturellen Informationstheorie.Diagnostika, (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Hendler, J. A. (1989). Marker-passing over micro-features: Towards a hybrid symbolic/connectionist model.Cognitive Science, 13, 79–106.Google Scholar
  7. Henle, M. (1984). Isomorphism: Setting the record straight.Psychological Research, 46, 317–327.Google Scholar
  8. Hinton, G. E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1986). Learning and relearning in Boltzmann machines. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Krause, W. (1989). Über menschliches Denken — Denken als Ordnungsbildung.Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 197, 1–30.Google Scholar
  10. Leeuwen, C. van (1989). PDP and Gestalt, an integration?Psychological Research, 50, 199–201.Google Scholar
  11. Leeuwen, C. van (1990). Indeterminacy of the isomorphism heuristic.Psychological Research, 52, 1–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Leeuwen, C. van, & Buffart, H. (1989). Facilitation of retrieval by perceptual structure.Psychological Research, 50, 202–210.Google Scholar
  13. Leeuwen, C. van, Buffart, H., & van der Vegt, J. (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
  14. Leeuwen, L. van, & Smitsman, A. (1991). Perzeption von Handlungsmöglichkeiten und die Entwicklung von Werkzeuggebrauch im frühen Kindesalter. In F. J. Monks & G. Lehwald (Eds.),Exploration, Kompetenz, Begabung. Beiträge zur frühkindlichen Entwicklung. München: Reinhardt (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Leeuwenberg, E. (1971). A perceptual coding language for visual and auditory patterns.American Journal of Psychology, 84, 307–349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of “Einstellung”.Psychological Monographs, 54, (Whole No. 248).Google Scholar
  17. Maas, H. L. J. van der, Verschure, P. F. M. J., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (1990). A note on chaotic behavior in simple neural networks.Neural Networks, (in press).Google Scholar
  18. Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems.Cognitive Science, 4, 135–183.Google Scholar
  19. Nicolis, J. S., & Prigogine, I. (1977).Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems: From dissipative structures to order through fluctuations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Pribram, K. (1984). What is iso and what is morphic in isomorphism?Psychological Research, 46, 329–332.Google Scholar
  21. Prigogine, I. (1980).From being to becoming: Time and complexity in the physical sciences. San Fransisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  22. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984).Computation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rock, I. (1983).The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, J. (1990). Treating connectionism properly: Reflections on Smolensky.Psychological Research, 52, 163–174.Google Scholar
  25. Scheerer, E. (1978). Expansion of the functional visual field and context skipping in a continuous search task.Psychological Research, 40, 113–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Thom, R. (1985). From the icon to the symbol. In R.E. Innes (Ed.),Semiotics, an introductory anthology (pp. 275–291). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  27. Van der Vegt, J., Buffart, H. J. F. M., & van Leeuwen, C. C. (1988). The “structural memory”: A network model for human perception of serial objects.Psychological Research, 50, 211–222.Google Scholar
  28. Wulf, F. (1922). Über die Veränderung von Vorstellungen.Psychologische Forschung, 1, 333–373.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations