The role of phenomenal displacement on the perception of the visual upright

Tilt invariably involves the factor of displacement. A clockwise rotation of a rod, for example, results in the top being displaced to the right and the bottom to the left. The question was raised as to which is primary, displacement or tilt. Through a series of experiments, apparent tilt was found to be the perceptual outcome of phenomenal displacement. In addition, gravity seemed to play no significant role in determining the visual upright. Therefore, the conventionally accepted field theory of apparent verticality was rejected and the visual upright was interpreted according to principles which govern the perception of motion and radial direction.     

The Personality of Select Theological Students

When 72 male students in a southern theological institution were compared by the manner in which they intended to fulfill their religious vocation (i.e., as missionaries, pastors, or religious education workers), a homogeneity of personality behavior was observed on each of 16 factors. The total sample, however, was reported to be substantially and significantly different from the general population on four factors. No significant difference was reported among the three groups in their need for social approval as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne SDS.     

Oculomotor adaptation to wedge prisms with no part of the body seen

When S looks at a visual target through prisms, adaptive shifts in reaching behavior occur even though he sees no part of his body through the prisms. These shifts are caused by a change in the judgment of the direction of gaze (oculomotor change), which in turn is caused by two secondary prismatic effects: (a) asymmetry of the visual display and (b) apparent rotation about a vertical axis of a panel or wall facing S. The “asymmetry” factor contributes 22% of the total oculomotor change, and the “rotation” effect contributes the remaining 78%. Oculomotor change is not facilitated by eye-movement activity. The adaptive oculomotor change induces a non-adaptive proprioception change about one-tenth as large as the oculomotor change. These findings are capable of accounting for the previously unexplained results reported by Wooster in 1923, and also for the current controversy about the role of reafferent stimulation in sensorymotor adaptation.