Abstract
Why is there so much more research on vision than on any other sensory modality? There is a seemingly easy answer to this question: It is because vision is our most important and most complex sense. Although there are arguments in favor of this explanation, it can be challenged in two ways: by showing that the arguments regarding the importance and complexity of vision are debatable and by demonstrating that there are other aspects that need to be taken into account. Here, I argue that the explanation is debatable, as there are various ways of defining “importance” and “complexity” and, as there is no clear consensus that vision is indeed the most important and most complex of our senses. Hence, I propose two additional explanations: According to the methodological-structural explanation, there is more research on vision because the available, present-day technology is better suited for studying vision than for studying other modalities – an advantage which most likely is the result of an initial bias toward vision, which reinforces itself. Possible reasons for such an initial bias are discussed. The cultural explanation emphasizes that the dominance of the visual is not an unchangeable constant, but rather the result of the way our societies are designed and thus heavily influenced by human decision-making. As it turns out, there is no universal hierarchy of the senses, but great historical and cross-cultural variation. Realizing that the dominance of the visual is socially and culturally reinforced and not simply a law of nature, gives us the opportunity to take a step back and to think about the kind of sensory environments we want to create and about the kinds of theories that need to be developed in research.
Highlights
It has already been observed, about a 100 years ago, that research on perception and perceptual memory often is research on visual perception and visual memory, while other sensory modalities play a minor role (Katz, 1925/1989). Gallace and Spence (2009) supported this observation with empirical data
The only explanation that can be found in contemporary books on perception and cognitive psychology, which I have called the textbook explanation, claims that the reason for the bias toward vision is its importance and complexity
Apart from that, the textbook explanation is at least incomplete as there are other aspects that need to be taken into consideration
Summary
It has already been observed, about a 100 years ago, that research on perception and perceptual memory often is research on visual perception and visual memory, while other sensory modalities play a minor role (Katz, 1925/1989). Gallace and Spence (2009) supported this observation with empirical data. One can get the impression that the development of haptic technology lags behind in time This observation leads to the second answer to the question as to why the available technology is better suited for studying vision than the other modalities: The “Matthew effect” (Merton, 1968) describes the fact that the networks of science are designed in a way that creates more attention for (and allocates more rewards to) already well-known researchers and well-established research topics while rather unknown fields and scientists remain largely unnoticed. Subsequent philosophers did not agree with the classical Aristotelian hierarchy in every respect, vision is almost always ranked as the highest sense in Western societies throughout the medieval ages up until today In this context, it is especially interesting that the study on the frequency of words referring to the different sensory modalities quoted above, did find an overall higher frequency of visual words in the investigated English corpora. A society placing higher value on the other senses would probably develop more balanced research agendas (i.e., research agendas in which the bias toward vision would be less pronounced)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
