Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Major Paradigms and Approaches in Psychology
- 2 Methodology in Psychology
- 3 Neuroscience in Psychology
- 4 Sensation and Perception
- 5 Attention: Awareness and Control
- 6 Learning
- 7 Memory
- 8 Decision-Making
- 9 Creativity
- 10 Intelligence
- 11 Development
- 12 Social Psychology
- 13 Gender
- 14 Emotion
- 15 Motivation
- 16 Personality
- 17 Abnormal Psychology
- 18 Psychotherapy
- 19 Health Psychology
- Index
- References
4 - Sensation and Perception
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 May 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Major Paradigms and Approaches in Psychology
- 2 Methodology in Psychology
- 3 Neuroscience in Psychology
- 4 Sensation and Perception
- 5 Attention: Awareness and Control
- 6 Learning
- 7 Memory
- 8 Decision-Making
- 9 Creativity
- 10 Intelligence
- 11 Development
- 12 Social Psychology
- 13 Gender
- 14 Emotion
- 15 Motivation
- 16 Personality
- 17 Abnormal Psychology
- 18 Psychotherapy
- 19 Health Psychology
- Index
- References
Summary
Sensory science began with the Greek philosophers (back to 600 BC). One early view: sensory experience is a faithful reflection of the physical world. As history swept through the Roman Empire, the fall of Rome and the transfer of science to Arabic scholars, sensory science as we know it had to await Andreas Vesalius and human dissections in the sixteenth century. Luigi Galvani’s animal electricity (eighteenth century) ushered in the scientific explosion of the nineteenth century that brought us Johannes Müller (doctrine of specific nerve energies) and the birth of psychology in the laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt (1879). Advances rapidly showed how information from each of our senses is processed through the nervous system; contrary to the Greeks, our perceptions are not always a faithful reflection of the physical world. Just as with physical science, sensory science requires measurement. Gustav Fechner argued that the unit of sensation is the jnd (the just-noticeable difference a stimulus must be increased for a person to detect a difference). This view held for a century until S. S. Stevens noted all jnds did not appear to be equal. He revolutionized the study of sensory and perceptual experience, and that revolution continues today.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Adrian, E. D. (1926). The impulses produced by sensory nerve endings. Part I. Journal of Physiology, 61, 49–72.Google Scholar
Adrian, E. D., & Zotterman, Y. (1926a). The impulses produced by sensory nerve endings. Part II. The response of a single end-organ. Journal of Physiology, 61, 151–171.Google Scholar
Adrian, E. D., & Zotterman, Y. (1926b). The impulses produced by sensory nerve endings. Part 3. Impulses set up by touch and pressure. Journal of Physiology, 61, 465–483.Google Scholar
Aitken, R. C. B. (1969). Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 62, 989–993.Google Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. M. (1978). History of taste research. In Carterette, E. C. & Friedman, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Perception (Vol. 6A, pp. 3–18). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. M. (1993a). The biological basis of food perception and acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 21–32.Google Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. M. (Ed.) (1993b). Genetic and Pathological Taste Variation: What Can We Learn from Animal Models and Human Disease? (Vol. Ciba Foundation Symposium 179). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Chapo, A. K., Fast, K., Yiee, J. H., Hoffman, H. J., Ko, C.-W., & Snyder, D. J. (2004). From psychophysics to the clinic: missteps and advances. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 617–632.Google Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Fast, K., Green, B. G., Prutkin, J. M., & Snyder, D. J. (2002). Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: What we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 125–138.Google Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Green, B. G., Hoffman, H. J., Ko, C.-W., Lucchina, L. A., Marks, L. E., Snyder, D. J., & Weiffenbach, J. (2004). Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: The gLMS vs. magnitude matching. Physiology & Behavior, 82, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartoshuk, L. M., Harned, M. A., & Parks, L. H. (1971). Taste of water in the cat: Effects on sucrose preference. Science, 171, 699–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoshuk, L. M., McBurney, D. H., & Pfaffmann, C. (1964). Taste of sodium chloride solutions after adaptation to sodium chloride: Implications of the “water taste.” Science, 143, 967–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beare, J. I. (1906). Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alemaeon to Aristotle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Beebe-Center, J. G. (1932). The Psychology of Pleasantness and Unpleasantness. New York: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L. T. (1977). The Psychological Round Table: Revolution of 1936. American Psychologist, 32, 542–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J. (1876). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, C. (2014). Defining a discovery: Priority and methodological controversy in early nineteenth-century anatomy. Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science, 68, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5–20.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgements in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4, 243–249.Google Scholar
Bolles, R. C. (1991). Hedonism. In Bolles, R. C. (Ed.), The Hedonics of Taste (pp. 1–13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boring, E. G. (1942). Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Brock, W. H. (1967). William Prout on taste, smell, and flavor. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 22, 184–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, H. (1965). Opening address of the innaugural meeting. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 659–663.Google Scholar
Dember, W. N. (1990). William James on sensation and perception. Psychological Science, 1, 163–166.Google Scholar
Faruque, M. U. (1981). The internal senses in Nemesius, Plotinus and Galen: The beginning of an idea. Journal of Ancient Philosophy, 10, 119–139.Google Scholar
Fernberger, S. W. (1914). Note on the affective values of colors. American Journal of Psychology, 25, 448–449.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1973). An analysis of hamster afferent taste nerve response functions. Journal of General Physiology, 61, 588–618.Google Scholar
Green, B. G. (1977). Localization of thermal sensation: An illusion and synthetic heat. Perception and Psychophysics, 22, 331–337.Google Scholar
Green, B. G., Shaffer, G. S., & Gilmore, M. M. (1993). A semantically-labeled magnitude scale of oral sensation with apparent ratio properties. Chemical Senses, 18, 683–702.Google Scholar
Hänig, D. P. (1901). Zur Psychophysik des Geschmackssinnes. Philosophische Studien, 17, 576–623.Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. M., & Rolls, B. J. (1987). Methods of investigating human eating behavior. In Toates, F. M. & Rowland, N. E. (Eds.), Feeding and Drinking (pp. 77–109). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers (Biomedical Division).Google Scholar
Hoon, M. A., Adler, E., Lindemeier, J., Battey, J. F., Ryba, N. J. P., & Zuker, C. S. (1999). Putative mammalian taste receptors: A class of taste-specific GPCRs with distinct topographic selectivity. Cell, 96, 541–551.Google Scholar
Hurvich, L. M., & Jameson, D. (1957). An opponent-process theory of color vision. Psychological Review, 64, 384–404.Google Scholar
James, W. (2012). The Letters of William James, Vol. 1. Urbana, IL: Project Gutenberg. www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40307Google Scholar
Jeon, T.-I., Zhu, B., Larson, J. L., & Osborne, T. F. (2008). SREBP-2 regulates gut peptide secretion through intestinal bitter taste receptor signaling in mice. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 118, 3693–3700.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. (2005). Miss Leavitt’s Stars: The Untold Story of the Woman Who Discovered How to Measure the Universe. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. P. (2011). Animal electricity, circa 1781. Scientist Magazine, September 28.Google Scholar
Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., Jessell, T. M., Siegelbaum, S. A., & Hudspeth, A. J. (2013). Principles of Neural Science. New York: McGraw Medical.Google Scholar
Klatzky, R. L. (2018). Touch. In Wolfe, J. M., Kluender, K. R., & Levi, D. M. (Eds.), Sensation & Perception. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, S. & Kärkkäinen, P. (2014). Medieval theories of internal senses. In Knuuttila, S. & Sihvola, J. (Eds.), Sourcebook for the History of the Philosophy of Mind (pp 131–145). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Krebs, E. E., Carey, T. S., & Weinberger, M. (2007). Accuracy of the pain numeric rating scale as a screening test in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 453–458.Google Scholar
Lasagna, L. (1960). The clinical measurement of pain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 86, 28–37.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1970). Early Greek Science Thales to Aristotle. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
Marshall, H. R. (1892). Pleasure-pain and sensation. Philosophical Review, 1, 625–648.Google Scholar
Meiselman, H. L., & Schutz, H. G. (2003). History of food acceptance research in the US Army. Appetite, 40, 199–216.Google Scholar
Melzack, R. (1983). The McGill Pain Questionnaire. In Melzack, R. (Ed.), Pain Measurement and Assessment (pp. 41–47), New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Nafe, J. P. (1929). A quantitative theory of feeling. Journal of General Physiology, 2, 199–211.Google Scholar
Narens, L., & Luce, R. D. (1983). How we may have been misled into believing in the interpersonal comparability of utility. Theory and Decision, 15, 247–260.Google Scholar
Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology, 11, 9–14.Google Scholar
Pfaffmann, C. (1941). Gustatory afferent impulses. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, 17, 243–258.Google Scholar
Pfaffmann, C. (1974a). de Gustibus (Mark II). In Krawiec, T. S. (Ed.), The Psychologists (pp. 402–439). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfaffmann, C. (1974b). Specificity of the sweet receptors of the squirrel monkey. Chemical Senses and Flavor, 1, 61–67.Google Scholar
Price, D. D., McGrath, P. A., Rafii, A., & Buckingham, B. (1983). The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain, 17, 45–56.Google Scholar
[Prout, W.] (1812). Observations upon the sensations of taste and smell. Medical and Physical Journal, 22, 457–461.Google Scholar
Rahman, F. (2012). Avicenaa vi. Psychology. In Encyclopaedia Iranica (Vol. 3, Fasc. 1, pp. 83–84). www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avicenna-vi.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S., & Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (2008). Touching illusions: Startling deceptions demonstrate how tactile information is processed in the brain. Scientific American, 18, 60–63.Google Scholar
Reid, T. (1785). Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edinburgh: Ogle, Allardice and Thomson.Google Scholar
Silverstone, T., & Stunkard, A. J. (1968). The anorectic effect of dexamphetamine sulphate. British Journal of Pharmacology and Chemotherapy, 33, 513–522.Google Scholar
Spence, D. P., & Ehrenberg, B. (1964). Effects of oral deprivation on responses to subliminal and supraliminal verbal food stimuli. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 10–18.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. C., & Green, B. G. (1996). History of research on touch. In Kruger, L. (Ed.), Pain and Touch (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1955). The measurement of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 815–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1974). S. S. Stevens. In Lindzey, G. (Ed.), A History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. 6, pp. 393–420). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Stratton, G. M. (1917). Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology Before Aristotle. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Tashani, O. A., & Johnson, M. I. (2010). Avicenna’s concept of pain. Libyan Journal of Medicine, 5, 1–4.Google Scholar
Tinazzi, M., Marotta, A., Fasano, A., Bove, F., Bentivoglio, A. R., Squintani, G., Pozzer, L., & Florio, M. (2013). Aristotle’s illusion reveals interdigit functional somatosensory alterations in focal hand dystonia. Brain, 136, 782–789.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. (1992). The discovery of the body: Human dissection and its cultural contexts in ancient Greece. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 65, 223–241.Google Scholar
Vosshall, L. B. (2015). Laying a controversial smell theory to rest. PNAS, 112, 6525–6526.Google Scholar
Weiss, T., Snitz, K., Yablonka, A., Khan, R. M., Gafsou, D., Schneidman, E., & Sobel, N. (2012). Perceptual convergence of multi-component mixtures in olfaction implies an olfactory white. PNAS, 109, 19959–19964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westheimer, G. (1983). Hermann Helmholtz and origins of sensory physiology. Trends in Neuroscience, 6, 5–9.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J., Kluender, K. R., & Levi, D. M. (Eds.). (2018). Sensation & Perception. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1897). Outlines of Psychology. Translated by Judd, C. H.. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Young, P. T. (1959). The role of affective processes in learning and motivation. Psychological Review, 66, 104–125.Google Scholar