Many people do not have a clear understanding as to what amodal perception is. For the purposes of this paper, the definition assumed for this term is found in the encyclo.co.uk (2012), which defines it as the phrase or term used to refer to describe the perception of an object in its totality only when a portion of it is visible. This is where the confusion comes I n since when people try to look at the unseen portion, they tend to define it in many different ways. There is, therefore, the need to look at the issue in detail and have a clear understanding as to what amodal perception actually is. In order to break this deadlock, there are various studies that have been carried out, all aiming at coming up with a solution. One of such studies was done by Nanay (2009). However, since there are many facets of the problem, it is only better to look at it from different perspectives, so as to give definitive solutions.
Nanay’s (2009) study agrees that when an object is partially visible, there is the possibility that people will, more often than not, come up with an explanation as to how the rest of the whole looks like. He, therefore, refrains from looking at why this is the case. However, he tries to explain how this happens. Therefore, his study seeks to address the question “how” rather than “what” or “why”. In order to bring the issue to light, he gives the analogy of the cat behind a picket fence with its tail obstructed. He goes on to argue that an individual looking at the cat is likely to formulate the image of the cat in whole as it might look, with its tail included. This is where he poses the question as to how this happens. He then proceeds to give the account as to how this comes about, and this is as explained in the paragraphs that follow.
In giving the solution to the problem, Nanay (2009) agrees that both imagination and perception play a part. He argues that imagination comes in since for an individual to perceive something, he must have a prior experience. Therefore, if a person sees a cat and perceives it with the tail, it is mainly because the person knows how a cat looks like with a tail. As such, he is likely to look at the cat with the idea that it has a tail. He also claims that this is what happens when an individual sees something then turns away. The image that the person has of the image is through perception. How then, does this perception come along? There are various channels, as explained below.
The first one is the perceptual account which claims that though an individual cannot see the tail of the cat, there is the perception that the tail is there. This is what happens when an individual comes across an occluded object. There is the belief that even if there is a part that is not visible, yet the part is there. Through the human imaginative ability, an individual can perceive what the rest of the shape looks like, based on what is visible. The second account is the belief, which has it that when an individual sees a section of an object, there is a non-perceptual inference as to what the rest of the object looks like. Again, this is greatly a function of the human mind as it tries, through belief, to construct the missing shape. The next explanation is the access account. This has it that when the cat is not visible, an individual has the feeling that if it moved, then there would be access to the remaining bit. As such, there is that inner understanding that even if the object is not visible, yet it can be easily accessed, there can be perceptual access to the fine-grained of the parts of the object that are occluded. The last explanation is the imagery account which holds that when an individual can see a part of an object, there is the tendency to form a mental image of the object in its wholeness. In as much as there might be uncertainty over the actual nature of the object, yet it cannot be denied that the account is actually true and helps in the creation of the mental image.
In response to the above critique, it can be said that everything that we see or understand is largely through perception and imagery. This is well explained by Nanay (2009). He claims that if an individual looks at a green chair then looks away, the image of the green chair will still be in mind, even if the chair is no longer focused on the retina of the eye. This perception is no different from that seen when actually looking at the chair. However, the image seen is through perception and imagery. As such, it is clear that perception and imagery are actually handy when dealing with amodal perception. Much as this point of view might be criticized, it still holds as a viable explanation as to how the objects can be perceived.
In conclusion, the above paragraphs have looked in detail at the amodal perception and how it functions in the framing of an occluded section of a whole. Through the account, it appears that the human mind is capable of high level imagination as well as perception through various channels. These allow for an individual to have the picture of a whole, even when it is not fully visible. This essay has given an explanation as to how the human brain works in bringing out the images that the people usually have. In as much as there might be some misunderstanding over this issue, it still holds that the human mind has a way through which it helps in creating the images that we see. It is the complex working that combines imagery and perception, as explained above.
References
Encyclo.co.uk. (2012). Amodal Perception. Retrieved on 20th June 2012 from http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Amodal%20perception
Nanay, B. (2009). Perception and Imagination: Amodal Perception as Mental Imagery. Springer, Issue 150, pp. 239-254. (Attached pdf).
