Microgenesis: A Genesis From Prototheory to Neuropsychology

  • John A. Cegalis
Part of the Springer Series in Neuropsychology book series (SSNEUROPSYCHOL)


A primary question for any microgenetic theory is the question of the nature of nonimmediate changes in the percept over time. A second question is how to characterize, depict, or describe such changes. Most micro-geneticists have used the construct of stages to describe qualitative changes in percept development. As Draguns (1984) pointed out, the construct of stage is both useful and problematic. The construct of stages provides a sense of orderliness, descriptive clarity, of conservation if you will, for our understanding of the nature of change. Yet the concept of stage may also blind us to subtler characteristics of processes that are subsumed in the coarser distinctions characterizing a stage.


Perceptual Experience Conscious Experience Perceptual Organization Genetic Theory Orient Reflex 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, A.L. (1984). Toward a dialectical conception of the percept-genetic approach to perception personality. In W.D. Froehlich, G. Smith, J.G. Draguns, & U. Hentschel (Eds.), Psychological processes in cognition and personality (pp. 125–134). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  2. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J. (1977). Mind, brain and consciousness: The neuropsychology of cognition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. (1988). The life of the mind: Selected papers, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. (1989). Essay on perception. In J.W. Brown (Ed.), Neuropsychology of visual perception (pp. 234–256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Cattán, L. (1986). The dynamic display of process: Historical development and contemporary uses of the microgenetic method. Human Development, 29,252–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christiansen, A.L. (1979). Luria’s neuropsychological investigation. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  8. Dixon, N.F. (1971). Subliminal perception: The nature of a controversy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Dixon, N.F. (1981). Preconscious processing. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Dixon, N.F. (1983). The conscious-unconscious interface: Contributions to an understanding. Archiv fur Psychologie, 135, 55–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon, N.F. (1984). Subliminal perception and microgenesis. In W.D. Froehlich, G. Smith, J.G. Draguns, & U. Hentschel (Eds.), Psychological processes in cognition and personality (pp. 225–230). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  12. Draguns, J.G. (1983). Why microgenesis? An inquiry on the motivational sources of going beyond the information given. Archiv fur Psychologie, 135, 5–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Draguns, J.G. (1984). Microgenesis by any other name…. In W.D. Froehlich, G. Smith, J.G. Draguns, & U. Hentschel (Eds.), Psychological processes in cognition and personality (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  14. Farah, M.J. (1988). Is visual imagery really visual? Overlooked evidence from neuropsychology. Psychological Review, 95,307–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fechner, G.T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkoph and Hartel.Google Scholar
  16. Flavell, J.H., & Draguns, J.G. (1957). A microgenetic approach to perception and thought. Psychological Bulletin, 54,197–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Froehlich, W.D. (1984). Microgenesis as a functional approach to information processing through search. In W.D. Froehlich, G. Smith, J.G. Draguns, & U. Hentschel (Eds.), Psychological processes in cognition and personality (pp. 19–52). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  18. Froehlich, W.D., & Laux, L. (1969). Serielles Wahrnehmen, Aktualgenese, informationsintegration und orienttierungsreaktion: I. Aktualgenetisches modell und orientierungsreaktion. Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 16, 250–277.Google Scholar
  19. Garner, W.R., Hake, H.W., & Erickson, C.W. (1956). Operationalism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review,63, 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gendlin, E.T. (1962). Experiencing and the creation of meaning: A philosophical and psychological approach to the subjective. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  21. Graham, C., & Leibowitz, H. (1972). The effect of hypnosis on visual acuity. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 20, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graumann, C.F. (1959). Aktualgenese: Die deskriptiven Grundlagen und theoretischen Wandlungen des aktualgenetischen Forschungsansatzes. Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 6, 410–448.Google Scholar
  23. Haber, R.N. (1969) (Ed.). Information-processing approaches to visual perception. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  24. Haber, R.N., & Hillman, E.R. (1966). The effect of repetition on the perception of single letters. Perception & Psychophysics,1, 347–350.Google Scholar
  25. Humphreys, G.W., Riddoch, M.J., & Quinlan, P.T. (1989). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5(1), 67–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Kantor, R.E. & Herron, W.G. (1964). Perceptual learning in the reactive-process schizophrenia. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment,29, 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinchla, R.A., & Wolfe, J.M. (1979). The order of visual processing: “Top-down,” “bottom-up,” or “middle-out.” Perception & Psychophysics, 25(3), 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein, G. (1970). Perception, motives and personality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  30. Kragh, U. (1955). The actual-genetic model of perception personality. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  31. Kragh, U., & Smith, G.J.W. (1964). Accessorial and inclusive approaches to marginal perceptual phenomena. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 5, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kragh, U., & Smith, G.J.W. (1970). Percept-genetic analysis. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  33. Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (1984). Meaning assignment in perception. In W.D. Froehlich, G. Smith, J.G. Draguns, & U. Hentschel (Eds.), Psychological processes in cognition and personality (pp. 173–192). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  34. Leibowitz, H.W., & Harvey, L.O. (1967). Size matching as a function of instructions in a naturalistic environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 378–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linschoten, J. (1959). Aktualgenese und heuristiches prinzip. Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 6, 449–473.Google Scholar
  36. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representa-tion and processing of visual information. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  37. Navon, D. (1975). Global precedence in visual recognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1957). Logic and psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Piaget, J. (1969). Mechanisms of perception. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Piaget, J. (1974). Biology and Knowledge. An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Potzl, O. (1960). The relationship between experimentally induced dream images and indirect vision. Monograph No. 7. Psychological Issues, 2, 41–120. (Original work published 1917).Google Scholar
  42. Posner, M.I. (1986). Chronometric explorations of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sander, F. (1930). Structures, totality of experience, and gestalt. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychologies of 1930 (pp. 191–207). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, G.J.W. (1954). The place of physiological constructs in a genetic explanatory system. Psychological Review,61, 73–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, G.J.W. (1957). Perception-an event over time. Psychological Review, 64, 306–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, G.J.W. (1983). Guest editor’s preface. Archiv fur Psychologie, 135, 1–3.Google Scholar
  47. Smedslund, J. (1969a). Meanings, implications and universals: Towards a psychology of man. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 10, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smedslund, J. (1969b). Psychological diagnostics. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Werner, H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In D.B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development (pp. 125–148). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  50. Westcott, M. (1967). Toward a psychology of intuition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • John A. Cegalis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations