|Answer: (2 of 2)
Reductionism, usually denoting reduction to an array of
one or zero dimension, states that the whole is no more
than the sum of it's parts, while Gestalt states that a
system must be seen as a whole, distinct from the sum of
it's parts. After all, there is greater complexity in
the interrelation even of the same elements into
entirely different forms.
Now, there are two ways to go beyond Reductionism to
one or no dimensions, which is clearly so inadequate to
model much of anything. One is by spatial metaphor, and
another is by reduction to an array of as many
dimensions as are needed to describe the complex
interrelationships of the system modeled.
Gestalt interprets phenomena as organized wholes,
rather than simply as aggregates of distinct parts.
Gestalt psychologists realised that just because you
know what the elements are, doesn't mean you'll know
what the configuration of elements looks like."
- "[Feature integration theory] is concerned with how the
various attributes of visual stimuli are combined into
single perceptions. Treisman (1988) has argued that this
combination is an atttentional process."
Feature integration theory describes a perceptual
process. And perceptual processes are
and model complex systems observed. This involves
pattern recognition. And pattern recognition is a
conjectural process, that begins with pattern creation,
and proceeds through selection by Critical Preference
and then Reality Testing.
Features are coded by separate systems, and then
integrated. This rather seems like Reductionism in
reverse. Where as Reductionism reduces the whole down to
it's parts, feature integration performs this operation
in reverse. But another aspect of feature integration is
selective attention flittering, in which some details
are left out. Because, top down processing, simply
integrating every bit of information,
until the model is complete, would be too much work.
In fact, not only is much information dropped out,
but certain features draw immediate attention by their
presence or even by their absence.
Attention is needed to conjoin features from different
maps. An "attention map" determines the location of the
attentional spotlight, which can "zoom" in and out to
try to conjoin features."
This is a conjectural modeling process, and
sometimes, in test subjects, misconjunctions occur, when
the attentional spotlight widens.
In other words, elements are sifted, selected, and
then relations are drawn between them. This suggests
reduction to an array of many dimensions. And that goes
beyond Reductionism to one or no dimensions. Thus,
arguably, Feature integration theory is a Gestalt
maintains that the significance of a structured whole
(e.g., in visual perception) does not depend on its
specific constituent elements; thus a drawn figure still
has meaning when there are gaps in the drawing."
Gestaltists did not provide an accurate physiological
model of how the visual system processed
configuruations" Feature integration theory, then, is an
attempt to elaborate upon Gestalt, so that it can be
tested and supported experimentally. So I really don't
know why I don't find Gestalt and feature integration
theory are not found mentioned in conjunction.
But perceptual feature integration is only a special
case of Gestalt in the wider sense. Because Gestalt is,
first of all, an
Ontological statement that Reductionism
is not true. That systems are structures, not merely sum
of their parts. Gestalt also focuses on structural
repair to solve problems, as in reintegrating parts of
personality into a healthy to remedy psychological
disturbance. Or the analysis of complex behavior
Gestalt can also be applied to the problem of
teaching in a way that focuses on comprehensible
structures, rather than in confusing pieces of
information with no guidance in fitting them together,
Feature integration theory integration also portrays
perception as a Gestalt analysis of