Article Summary
The prime focus of the article is to understand the behavior of a frog by assessing the connection between its eye and brain. This follows the fact that a frog has a single visual system, retina to colliculus. The uniformity displayed by this connection, which is also supported by the lack of head movements is the one that has facilitated the experiment.
The procedure for this experiment relied on the use of Rose’s platinum and Dowben that were used to facilitate the study of fibers within the optic nerve. A small flap of bone behind the eye or the brain was opened to expose the optic nerve and superior colliculus. The frog was then covered with soggy cloth and held in extension in a cork platform. Aluminum hemisphere was used to confront the frog’s eye with a diameter of 14 inches and a thickness of 20 mils. A phototube was used to view the image of hemisphere taken by the camera lens and focused on the horizontal of a diaphragm. The findings of the experiment were grouped into four siatinct operations of the frog’s eye. These operations were moving edge detection, sustained contrast detection, net convexity detection, and net dimming detection.
Context of the paper in the history of cognitive psychology
The focus of the study is to evaluate the relationship between the eye and the mind of a frog by assessing the impact of the processes that take place from what a frog sees, and what is processed his the mind. From the experiment, it is affirmed that the eye speaks to the brain in a language that is organized and interpreted rather than transferring accurate copies of distribution of light receptors (Lettvin, et al., 1959). This is an important aspect raised in the article in the attempt of understanding the behavior of a frog when searching for food or fleeing from his predators (Lettvin, et al., 1959). This is an excellent perception of the connection that lies between the eyes and the mind that stimulates processing of images in mind from what one sees. The article plays a significant role in understanding the transformations made by the nervous system. Edward Titchener who deduced three states of consciousness first studied this transformation of light from the eye to the mind. Titchener claimed that the states of consciousness are sensations, images, and affection. The two states sensations and images are key to the formation of images in the brain with sensation being what has seen and images as what is formed in one’s mind.
Another important aspect of this article is the way the authors bring out the use of visual space in mind that facilitates the transformation of images from the retina to the mind. According to Lettvin, et al. (1959), images in retina forms once the cones and rods have composed an array of light to a certain composition. Through the comprehension of how light from the retina is transformed to the mind and joined to make up an image, then it can be possible to reconstruct images physically. Besides, retina projects to the tectum using four different parallel sheets where each sheet map retina into a factual operation (Lettvin, et al., 1959). With the same intent, it is made clear that image is transformed from space to discrete points to the congruent space. The congruent space in mind is the one that points intersect to with neighborhood points depending on their qualities to form images in mind.
The focus of cognitive psychology is the study of attention, language, memory, thinking, and problem-solving. It is through this field that mind is studied as an information processor. The study and development of cognitive psychology started in the 18th century where assessments on the working of the human mind were done by evaluating the complexity of simple ideas to complex one. According to James Mill, a mind is a machine that works depending on the external stimuli (Wagemans, et al., 2012). This is similar to the studied article that stresses that the mind of a frog depends on what the eyes can see from the external environment. Mill added that sensations and ideas are as a result of the mental processes.
Similar developments took place in the 20th century where a psychology such as Edward Tolman demonstrated that animals have both internal representations and expectations that guide their behaviors (Wagemans, et al., 2012). This is true, as the reviewed article has demonstrated. The authors claim that a frog flees from its enemies by running into the darker areas. Emphasizing on the same, the authors argued that a frog leaps to the darker places as this are what it is used to; thus perceives it as being safe (Lettvin, et al., 1959). Skinner also played a crucial role in the development of the cognitive psychology by introducing the concept of Skinner box that facilitated the measurement of a learned animal behavior. According to this psychologist, behavior changes are as a result of responses that one has over the environment stimuli. This is evident in the article, as the authors have stressed that if a frog does not move, then he will not see what surrounds him. This is supported by the fact that the movement of a frog determines what he will eat as this movement is the one that will open his mind to his surrounding world.
Other prominent psychologists such as McClelland suggested that simple processing is the ones that send the excitatory signals to the other units. In this case, by understanding the basic features, the complex system of the mind can be easily understood (Plaut, et al., 2003). Besides, McClelland adds that the ability to process an idea depends on the interconnection of the elements that refer to the neural model; thus constituting to the connectionist theory (Wagemans, et al., 2012). This concept is clearly demonstrated in the article where the authors discuss that a frog has a million receptors that connect to the approximately 21/2 to 31/2 neurons while having half a million ganglion cells (Lettvin, et al., 1959). Such connection leads to the formation of a synaptic cell that enables it to receive path from a huge number of receptors. However, such a distribution does not allow a good resolution if the purpose of the retina is to map the image depending on the light intensity that will determine the dissemination of excitement within the optic nerve. Such a disclosure elaborates on the interconnection suggested by McClelland.
The evolution of cognitive psychology in collaboration with the cognitive theory clearly shows their support of the reviewed article. This relates to the suggestions made by most of the psychologists from the 16th century to the current date on ways that brain processes ideas from the perceived images around one’s environment (Butler, et al., 2006). This being the prime goal of the article, it has been made clear the relation between what is seen and what is processed in the brain following the interconnection that exists in the brain of a frog. Moreover, psychologists have presented the importance of the environment to the behaviors that one adapts to; thus explaining why frogs are adapted to the dark areas.
Is the article relevance?
The article is of substantial importance to the today’s study of cognitive psychology. The importance of this article is the way it assesses the working of certain neurons in the frog’s brain works in coordination to what a frog can see. Besides, the article aims at finding out the stimulus that plays the largest part in getting the activities done as well the exciting part of that stimulus. To achieve this Lettvin, et al., (1959) played with the frog’s nerves in a trial method of identifying a particular nerve that will produce a maximum signal from the nerve fibers. Dumit (2014) published an article that attempts to assess and understand the focus of brain by evaluating what a brain cares. The conduct and basis for this article are the method and findings of the first experiment carried by Lettvin, et al., (1959). The author of this article shows a sound understanding of the process used by Lettvin, et al., (1959) to carry the study by emphasizing the method used to carry the complete the experiment.
Lettvin, et al., (1959) attempted to evaluate how a neuron works by playing with the neurons. Through this process, the researchers were surprised that they method could work and establish acceptable results that would conform neurons to the method used. As such, Dumit (2014) aimed at pushing this study forward using a standardized method that will lead to the establishment of an experimental design that will find significant connection and publish the findings. With such a focus, the study by Lettvin, et al., (1959) has played a significant role in guiding the researchers on the procedure of carrying this research using a standardized and effective design unlike what Lettvin used. Conversely, the article established a relationship between the eye and the brain and the control that persist between the two for effective communication. Therefore, this proves the article worth until the date.
Conclusion
Through this experiment, it becomes clear on how the brain makes images by understanding the light transformation from the retina to brain cells. This work also shows one of the key areas that attracted psychologists in studying the brain by attempting to understand how images are formed in the brain as well the communication between the eye and the brain (Lettvin, et al., 1959). Similarly, the study has abided with the key area of cognitive revolution, which is pattern recognition. Pattern recognition majors on how people view and recognize objects (Plaut, et al., 2003). Under this area, psychologists attempted to understand the input mode by describing the features of the transformation of the ray from the eye to the brain. The second area of interest in this field is matching the object with what is already stored in mind and selecting the best match of this object with what is already stored in the brain (Plaut, et al., 2003). This area assesses the matching of images as well as the memory, which conforms to the experiment by Lettvin as it attempts to describe image formation in the brain of a frog (Lettvin, et al., 1959). As such, the essence of this experiment is vividly shown as it cuts across most of the psychologist areas from image processing, formation, and pattern recognition, which are key areas of cognitive psychology such as language and memory.
References
Butler, A. C., Chapman, J. E., Forman, E. M., & Beck, A. T. (2006). The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clinical psychology review, 26(1), 17-31.
Dumit, J. (2014). Plastic neuroscience: studying what the brain cares about. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 176. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00176
Lettvin, J. Y., Maturana, H. R., McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. H. (1959). What The Frog’s Eye Tells the Frog’s Brain? Proceedings of the IRE, 47(11), 1940-1951.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological review, 103(1), 56-115.
Wagemans, J., Elder, J., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S., Peterson, M., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172-1217.
