Speaking of problems with textbooks, what do you think of how some
textbooks indicate that the brain must compensate for the inversion of
the images on the retinas by turning the image back over? For
example, Bernstein & Nash (1999, p. 77) say, "The brain rearranges
this upside-down and reversed image so that people can see the object
as it is." (BTW, I like the Bernstein & Nash book very much.)
Zimbardo makes a similar statement in the Discovering Psychology
segment on S&P. I have been telling my students that, because the
brain does not deal with images, only neural responses, the
orientation on the retina doesn't matter. What matters is that there
is a consistent mapping between the distal stimulus and the neural
signal in the brain. (A pair of goggles made by Jim Matiya provide a
nice demonstration of this.) The analogy I use is that if you were
receiving a morse code signal, it wouldn't matter to you whether the
sender had the signal box upside down or right side up - it's only the
code that matters. Am I explaining this correctly, or is the book
correct?
David Kreiner
Professor of Psychology
Central Missouri State University
Warrensburg MO 64093
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 660 543-8076
Fax: 660 543-8505
