Neuro Psychologists around the world have taken much interest in the field of visual perception. These psychologists have conducted many experiments and formed their own theories as to what they perceive are the processes and brain mechanisms involved in visual perception and further, how these processes and brain mechanisms work and interact together. According to Sutherland (1983), visual perception can be identified as the ability to judge distance and depth, to see movement, to recognize objects when seeing them at different distances or from different points of view, and to construct a model in our heads of the world around us.

Research has found that when we create visual imagery in our minds, both top-down and bottom-up processing is equally important to the process. According to Posner and Marcus (1997), bottom-up processing can be defined as those processes driven automatically by a person, over which we may have no control; Barinaga (1997) states that an example of this is the brain's involuntary mechanisms for resolving competition between conflicting interpretations of information it receives. Posner and Marcus define top-dow

Kandel, Schwartz and Jessell (2000) state that simply moving about in the world from day to day requires the complex analysis of much visual stimuli. When we visually perceive any image, firstly the photoreceptors of the retina project to the bipolar cells, which are then transferred to the retinal ganglion cells, the output system of the retina. The visual information is then transferred along the optic nerve to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, which in turn projects to the visual cortex (Kandel, 2000).

The results from the experiment quite confidently support the second hypothesis that when the presentation of the second series of related drawings were presented to the subjects, there would be also be the presence of 'neural fatigue' in the subjects interpretation of the ambiguous figure that followed, and therefore it would be a different interpretation to that of what they interpreted as after the viewing of it after the previous series of drawings. It is clear from the present results that indeed it seems that exposure to a series of images related to one of the two images in an ambiguous figure produces participant's to view the opposite image to that of the series of related images. Long and Olszweski (1999) found in their study that when a subject was presented with the viewing of one of the images from a reversible ambiguous image in an unambiguous format, before they were presented with the viewing of the real reversible ambiguous image, the subject remarkably report!

ect than Long and Olszweski (1999) found in their study, because of the longer adaptation period involved in presenting four images in oppose to just one.

Some topics in this essay:
Results Graph, Sturt University, Schwartz Jessell, Robertson Treisman, University Students, Abstract Visual, Posner Marcus, ambiguous figure, According Sutherland, Neuro Psychologists, T's L's, series drawings, 'neural fatigue', olszweski 1999, ambiguous image, olszweski 1999 found, image unambiguous, visual target, 1999 found, interpret ambiguous, interpret ambiguous figure, robertson treisman 1993, participants shown, grabowecky robertson treisman, reversible ambiguous image,