Gibson, J. (1998). A theory of direct visual perception.
I found this reading slightly difficult to follow and grasp the concepts that were being explained. Top-down and bottom-up processing seem very simple in theory, but this reading seemed to focus on information and perceiving that information. From what I took away from the reading was that there are principles of optics, and that we must sample and piece together information to form an environment because we cannot view everything at once. Another theory that stood out to me was the concept of depth perception. Gibson claims that it is not perceiving a third dimension but instead perceiving the layout of an environment.
Overall, Gibson had innovative ways of perceiving perception and how we process information. I thought the reading was a little hard to follow because the way it was written (why were so many word italicized?), but was still enlightening.
Chang, D., Dooley, L., & Tuovinen, J. Gestalt theory in visual screen design – A new look at an old subject.
This article was a good overview of the Gestalt principles, most of which I have already learned in another class at one point or another. I think they explained them well, with decent examples for visualization. I doubt this article was chosen for the findings because it seemed that all they did was reinforce the fact that Gestalt principles work.
El-Nasr, M., & Yan, S. Visual attention in 3D video games.
I thought this article was interesting in that they used eye tracking during gameplay to discover which type of processing was being used and had decent results to base their conclusions on. However, I do think it could be taken further due to their limitations.
I did notice that when they mentioned that only a couple of participants would notice items from the start, they did not say which category of gamer the player fell in. While I would assume the more experienced gamer would be more prone to find the exit sooner, I wonder if this was the case in their study. I think the result could give their conclusion a little more merit (but then again, only 6 participants were used).