The Jesus after-image is popular one and after-images are covered fairly well in most
Psych 100 texts. BTW, Negative after-images MAY play a role in some apparitions, but
misattribution of light fluctuations tied to perceptual set is more likely in my few
investigations.
In the past I also differentiated after-images from after-effects and wonder if
this distinction is/was valid. After-effects, such as the popular spiral and
waterfall effects, I thought were due to more involved brain processing and not tied
essentially to retinal level work. I also recall that an after image would NOT
transfer from one eye to the other, whereas an after-effect would. I will go stare at
spirals, but perhaps some S&P folks on tips could enlighten us as to whether this
distinction is meaningful. I have seen Intro texts that use after-image and
after-effect for the same phenomenon.
PS: FWI, I speak of negative after-images as involving the REMOVAL of a color
stimulus when I cover the opponent process idea, then, later, in the Learning chapter
they might be more familiar with this usage of positive (added) and negative (removed)
stimuli. Thus, less likely (we can hope) to impute naive connotations to the words
positive and negative when speaking of reinforcements. There might be other examples
in lab sciences where a positive stimulus means added and negative means removed? that
we might employ? Gary Peterson
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
989-964-4491
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
