Skip to main content
Log in

Do clinicians decide relying primarily on Bayesians principles or on Gestalt perception? Some pearls and pitfalls of Gestalt perception in medicine

  • Points of View
  • Published:
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A CE - LETTER TO THE EDITOR to this article was published on 21 November 2014

Abstract

Clinical judgment is a foundation of medical practice and lies at the heart of a physician’s knowledge, expertise and skill. Although clinical judgment is an active part of all medical fields, thus including diagnosis and therapy, communication and decision making, it is still poorly defined. It can be considered a synthesis of intuition (mainly based on Gestalt principles) and an analytical approach. Gestalt perception finds its rationale in the evidence that perception of any given object or experience exhibits intrinsic qualities that cannot be completely reduced to visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory components. Thus, perceptions are not constructed in a “bottom-up” fashion from such elements, but are instead globally perceived, in a more “top-down” fashion. Gestalt perception, if cautiously and carefully combined with structured (techno)logical tools, would permit one to defoliate the often too-many-branches built diagnostic trees, and help physicians to better develop their competency. On the other hand, the practice of evidence-based medicine lies in the integration of individual clinical expertise and judgment with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. This article is aimed at providing some general concepts about Gestalt perception, and to discuss some aspects of clinical practice potentially influenced by this approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (2005) Royal College of Physicians. Doctors in society: medical professionalism in a changing world. Report of a Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians of London, London

  2. Miller JI (2005) The complete cardiothoracic surgeon: qualities of excellence. Ann Thoracic Surg 78:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ofri D (2006) The practice of medicine: neither science nor art. Lancet 367:807–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kienle GS, Kiene H (2011) Clinical judgement and the medical profession. J Eval Clin Pract 17:621–627

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sbrojavacca R (2012) “What, diagnosis?” Between Bayes and biases. Intern Emerg Med 7(Suppl. 3):S173–S179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lippi G, Cervellin G, Plebani M (2014) The ten commandments of laboratory testing for emergency physicians. Clin Chem Lab Med 52:183–187

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cervellin G, Rastelli G, Lippi G (2013) Swept away and squashed between myth based medicine and eminence based medicine. Metaphor of medical meta-cognition. What are we doing wrong with our patient? Rec Prog Med 104:545–553

    Google Scholar 

  8. Miller LW (2008) Heart failure: who we treat versus who we study. Cardiol Clin 26:113–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP (2004) Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 291:2720–2726

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA (2007) Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 297:1233–1240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Casazza G, Costantino G, Duca P (2010) Clinical decision making: an introduction. Intern Emerg Med 5:547–552

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kotaska A (2004) Inappropriate use of randomised trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery. Br Med J 329:1036–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rothwell PM (2005) External validity of randomised controlled trials: ‘To whom do the results of this trials apply?’. Lancet 365:82–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Horrobin DF (2002) Effective clinical innovation: an ethical imperative. Lancet 359:1857–1858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vandenbroucke JP (2001) In defence of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med 134:330–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do. Lancet 359:145–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sagan C (1997) The Demon-Haunted World: science as a candle in the dark, 1st edn. Ballantine, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ash MG, Woodward WR (1998) Gestalt psychology in German culture, 1890–1967: Holism and the Quest for Objectivity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Henry SG (2006) Recognizing tacit knowledge in medical epistemology. Theor Med Bioeth 27:187–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Feddock CA (2007) The lost art of clinical skills. Am J Med 120:374–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Halonen JS, Santrock JW (1996) Psychology: contexts of behavior, 2nd edn. Brown and Benchmark, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pinna B, Sirigu L (2011) The accentuation principle of visual organization and the illusion of musical suspension. Seeing Perceiving 24:595–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Klapp ST, Jagacinski RJ (2011) Gestalt principles in the control of motor action. Psych Bull 137:443–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. No Authors listed (1999) Dyspnea. Mechanisms, assessment, and management: a consensus statement. Am Rev Resp Crit Care Med 159:321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Parshall MB, Schwartzstein RM, Adams L, Banzett RB, Manning HL, Bourbeau J, Calverley PM, Gift AG, Harver A, Lareau SC, Mahler DA, Meek PM, O’Donnell DE (2012) An official American Thoracic Society statement: update on the mechanisms, assessment, and management of dyspnea. American Thoracic Society Committee on Dyspnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 185:435–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hennessey A, Setyono DA, Lau WB, Fields JM (2012) A patient with a large pulmonary saddle embolus eluding both clinical Gestalt and validated decision rules. Ann Emerg Med 59:521–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Meyer G, Quentin-Georget S, Soulie C, Thys F, Roy PM (2013) Comparison of the unstructured clinician Gestalt, the wells score, and the revised geneva score to estimate pretest probability for suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med 62:117–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stevens SM (2012) Review: Gestalt or clinical decision rules have limited sensitivity and specificity for detecting acute PE. Ann Intern Med 156:JC1–JC11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Prado M, Fiorelli EM, Wu MA, Sandrone G, Tobaldini E (2013) Nothing as it seems. Todd’s paralysis. Intern Emerg Med 8:425–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brighton H, Gigerenzer G (2012) Homo heuristicus: less-is-more effects in adaptive cognition. Malays J Med Sci 19:6–16

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Koontz NA, Gunderman RB (2008) Gestalt theory: implications for radiology education. Am J Radiol 190:1156–1160

    Google Scholar 

  33. Drew T, Evans K, Võ ML, Jacobson FL, Wolfe JM (2013) Informatics in radiology. What can you see in a single glance and how might this guide visual search in medical images? RadioGraphics 33:263–274

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Peabody FW (1927) The care of the patient. JAMA 88:877–882

    Google Scholar 

  35. Becker MC, Galla JM, Nissen SE (2011) Left main trunk coronary artery dissection as a consequence of inaccurate coronary computed tomographic angiography. Arch Intern Med 171:698–701

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Redberg R, Katz M, Grady D (2011) Diagnostic tests: another frontier for less is more: or why talking to your patient is a safe and effective method of reassurance. Arch Intern Med 171:619–623

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Elstein AS (2000) Clinical problem solving and decision psychology. Acad Med 75(Suppl 10):134–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rennig J, Bilalic M, Huberle E, Karnath HO, Himmelbach M (2013) The temporo-parietal junction contributes to global gestalt perception. Evidence from studies in chess experts. Front Hum Neurosci 7:513. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00513

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ritzinger B, Huberle E, Karnath HO (2012) Bilateral theta-burst TMS to influence global Gestalt perception. PLoS ONE 7(10):e47820

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jefferys WH, Berger JO (1991) Ockham’s razor and Bayesian statistics. Am Sci 80:64–72

    Google Scholar 

  41. Elia F, Pagnozzi F, Laface B, Aprà F, Roccatello D (2013) A victim of Occam’s razor. Intern Emerg Med 8:767–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianfranco Cervellin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cervellin, G., Borghi, L. & Lippi, G. Do clinicians decide relying primarily on Bayesians principles or on Gestalt perception? Some pearls and pitfalls of Gestalt perception in medicine. Intern Emerg Med 9, 513–519 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-014-1049-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-014-1049-8

Keywords

Navigation