The article "Perceptual Learning: Differentiation or Enrichment?" by James J. Gibson and Eleanor J. Gibson explores the different interpretations of the term "perceptual learning" among psychologists. The authors distinguish between two main perspectives: one that views perception as largely learned, such as learning to see depth or form, and another that views learning as dependent on perception, emphasizing comprehension, expectation, and insight. They argue that these two perspectives should be separated, with the former focusing on the role of learning in perception and the latter on the role of perception in learning. The authors delve into the philosophical debate about whether all knowledge comes through sensory organs or is contributed by the mind itself. They discuss various theories, including rationalism, nativism, and empiricism, and highlight the importance of past experience in shaping perception. They critique the theory of sensory organization, which suggests that perception is intrinsically structured, and argue for a more integrated approach that combines association and organization. The article presents two main theories of perceptual learning: the enrichment theory and the specificity theory. The enrichment theory posits that perception becomes more imaginary and inferential, while the specificity theory suggests that perception becomes more discriminatory and corresponds more closely to physical stimulation. The authors support the specificity theory, arguing that perceptual development is a matter of differentiation, where the correspondence between stimulation and perception increases. The article includes an experimental study demonstrating the specificity of identifying responses in adults, older children, and younger children. The results show that learning involves an increase in the specificity of responses, reducing the class of items that elicit the response. The authors conclude that perceptual learning is not about enriching sensations but about differentiating stimuli, and that the ability to differentiate stimuli is fundamental to perceptual learning. They suggest that this approach has practical implications for education and training, but also acknowledges its limitations in explaining misperception and abnormal behavior.The article "Perceptual Learning: Differentiation or Enrichment?" by James J. Gibson and Eleanor J. Gibson explores the different interpretations of the term "perceptual learning" among psychologists. The authors distinguish between two main perspectives: one that views perception as largely learned, such as learning to see depth or form, and another that views learning as dependent on perception, emphasizing comprehension, expectation, and insight. They argue that these two perspectives should be separated, with the former focusing on the role of learning in perception and the latter on the role of perception in learning. The authors delve into the philosophical debate about whether all knowledge comes through sensory organs or is contributed by the mind itself. They discuss various theories, including rationalism, nativism, and empiricism, and highlight the importance of past experience in shaping perception. They critique the theory of sensory organization, which suggests that perception is intrinsically structured, and argue for a more integrated approach that combines association and organization. The article presents two main theories of perceptual learning: the enrichment theory and the specificity theory. The enrichment theory posits that perception becomes more imaginary and inferential, while the specificity theory suggests that perception becomes more discriminatory and corresponds more closely to physical stimulation. The authors support the specificity theory, arguing that perceptual development is a matter of differentiation, where the correspondence between stimulation and perception increases. The article includes an experimental study demonstrating the specificity of identifying responses in adults, older children, and younger children. The results show that learning involves an increase in the specificity of responses, reducing the class of items that elicit the response. The authors conclude that perceptual learning is not about enriching sensations but about differentiating stimuli, and that the ability to differentiate stimuli is fundamental to perceptual learning. They suggest that this approach has practical implications for education and training, but also acknowledges its limitations in explaining misperception and abnormal behavior.