Some current confusions in visual neuroscience and psychology over the use of the terms ‘visual field’, ‘field of vision’, ‘stimulus field’, and topographic ‘brain maps’ are reviewed. These are often used as synonyms, whereas they refer to quite different things. A plea is made that visual scientists should use these terms correctly to avoid conceptual and engineering confusion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CrickF, 1994The Astonishing Hypothesis (New York: Scribner).
DimondS JBuresJFarringtonL JBrouwersE Y M, 1975“The use of contact lenses for the lateralization of visual input in man”Acta Psychologica39341–349.
4.
GibsonJ J, 1979The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin) chapter VII.
5.
HackerP M S, 1991“Experimental methods and conceptual confusion: An investigation into R.L. Gregory's theory of perception”Iyyun40289–314.
6.
NatsulosT, 1992“Consciousness and commissurotomy: IV. Three hypothesized dimensions of deconnected left-hemisphere consciousness”Journal of Mind and Behavior1337–68.
7.
RevonsuoA, 1995“Consciousness, dreams, and virtual reality”Philosophical Psychology835–58.
8.
SmythiesJ R, 1953“The experience and description of the human body”Brain76132–145.
9.
SmythiesJ, 1994aThe Walls of Plato's Cave (Aldershot, Hants: Avebury).
10.
SmythiesJ, 1994b“Shipwreck of a Grand Hypothesis. Review of F. Crick The Astonishing Hypothesis'”Inquiry37267–281.
11.
SmythiesJ, 1994c“Review of F Crick ‘The Astonishing Hypothesis’”Brain117899–901.
12.
VernonM D, 1962A Further Study of Visual Perception (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
13.
ZekiS, 1992“The visual image in mind and brain”Scientific American26768–77.
