This book revolutionizes how vision can be taught to undergraduate and graduate students in cognitive science, psychology, and optometry. It is the first comprehensive textbook on vision to reflect the integrated computational approach of modern research scientists. This new interdisciplinary approach, called "vision science," integrates psychological, computational, and neuroscientific perspectives. The book covers all major topics related to vision, from early neural processing of image structure in the retina to high-level visual attention, memory, imagery, and awareness. The presentation throughout is theoretically sophisticated yet requires minimal knowledge of mathematics. There is also an extensive glossary, as well as appendices on psychophysical methods, connectionist modeling, and color technology. The book will serve not only as a comprehensive textbook on vision, but also as a valuable reference for researchers in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, computer science, optometry, and philosophy.
Strong concept book and not as heavy on electrophysiological detail as Kandel et al. Also the philosophical content is nil but what do you expect from MIT? What I like most about the book is the plain admission: we do not yet know how vision works. We have lots of theories, some evidence, most of which cuts different ways and not a lot of hard info on how cells function in the visual cortex and what they actually do. Often a theory and its seeming opposite are both true, as in the case of the Helmholtz-Hering controversy over colors. BTW, where is Hering's theory of stereopsis? My specialty is Mach Bands and lateral inhibition and even that well established theory is not without serious objections and counter-objections. Which does not mean the theory is wrong either, just not the whole story perhaps. Vision science is a work in progress, but that's what makes science interesting, is it not?