My current research focuses on the physiology of vision in the early nineteenth century, and in particular the investigation of subjective visual phenomena. Among those who studied vision in the early nineteenth century, there emerged a growing consensus that the strange slips of the eye offered a uniquely fruitful topic. But it was not immediately clear how these subjective results could be communicated to the community at large. How does one turn subjective phenomena into an object of broad scientific discussion?
My project examines the way that subjective visual experiences and the norms of communication influenced each other. Once one discovered a notable optical phenomenon, what were the most compelling means to convey it? And for those receiving these reports, what was considered an adequate representation? And what were the criteria for verification? My broad interest is in historically situating perception, and I believe this particular project offers the opportunity to explore how vision can shape representation, as well as how representation might affect visual experiences.
At this point, I have primarily focused on Britain, but I have begun researching these questions in the context of Central Europe (especially the works of Jan Evangelista Purkinje and Johannes Müller). While at the MPIWG, I hope to continue this research and better understand they ways physiologists of vision communicated with each other throughout Central Europe.