Physiological Psychology and Psycho-physics

    Article metrics

    Abstract

    DR. TITCHENER'S criticism of my note strikes me as a little strange. First of all, he objects to my speaking of “physiological psychology or psycho-physics,” maintaining that they are different, and then proceeds at once to subsume psychophysics under physiological psychology. As a matter of fact, psycho-physics, as understood by Fechner, the coiner of the word, and generally up to quite recent times, does not directly refer to the relation of the organism to psychical phenomena at all, but to the relation between the (extra-organic) stimulus and sensation, though of course this inquiry leads on to two further inquiries: (a) the relation of the extra-organic to the organic process, and (b) the relation of this last to sensation. Münsterberg and others now use “psycho-physical” for relations generally between neural processes and psychical processes, but the change of meaning is a little confusing. Anyhow, it will be seen that there is no general agreement about the expressions “physiological psychology” and “psycho-physics,” such as Dr. Titchener's note suggests.

    Access optionsAccess options

    Rent or Buy article

    Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

    from$8.99

    All prices are NET prices.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Comments

    By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.