The significance of the nose for certain phenomena of v.

Abstract

BOWER1 draws attention to the fact that the majority of organisms have evolved in such a way that part of the body (almost invariably the nose) is permanently present in the visual field. This, as he points out, can hardly be accidental and indicates that the organ may have a function in visual perception; subjects lacking a nose may differ from normals on tests of visual capacity. Unfortunately this clinical condition is now rarely encountered and affected individuals may, in any case, develop compensatory techniques, for example, reliance on glimpses of some other part of the body. It may be more profitable to consider the effects of making the nose visible where this is not normally the case. The autokinetic phenomenon may, for example, be a consequence of the fact that in total darkness the nose is invisible and cannot play its customary role as a stable point of reference by which other objects in the visual field are judged stationary or in motion with respect to the observer. What would be the effect of making the nose visible? I report here two experiments in which the nose was visible in an otherwise dark visual field. Contrary to Bower, autokinetic movement seems to have persisted.