Latham and McCormack (2009) in their research focuses on the way visual images has been central in the study and learning of geographical fieldwork. They argue that visual images has the power to shape the thinking patterns of several agencies who are responsible for shaping the layout of the urban city. Visual images is nothing but perceiving what is being seen with physical eyes, which then goes on to give several mental images to the viewer. The viewer then develops several conceptions about these images according to the criteria given to fulfil. It must be noted here that the viewer conceives the perceived images as per the criteria given and not as per their natural existence. Gibson (1971) proposes that through perceptual learning, one learns representations of things, invariants of events occurring over time, distinctive features of things, and symbolic entities like words. This learning indicates that how one perceives these things first, as it being the first of all conception that takes place, and later the perceived thing is developed further.
The perception of words as symbols also suggest that when one learns a new method of research, it is only within the frame and context of the variance of words provided, not any further. Does this not conclude that anything that research methods propose or considers a theory is first perceived mentally and is then directed to different conclusions? Perceptions are not controlled by the mind but are dawned on one when the organs of sense are active, which is why one does not perceive when one is asleep. Relying on a research method is merely a mechanical replacement to reject divinatory perception coming in the form of ideas. Thus, perception cannot be regarded as one aspect of learning, but it is the first and foremost aspect of learning without which no conclusions and no research methods can be idealised or theorised.