Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:06:27.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perception-action as reciprocal, continuous, and prospective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2008

Jeffrey B. Wagman
Jeffrey B. Wagman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790. [email protected]://www.psychology.ilstu.edu/jbwagma/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From the perspective of ecological psychology, perception and action are not separate, linear, and mechanistic processes that refer to the immediate present. Rather, they are reciprocal and continuous and refer to the impending future. Therefore, from the perspective of ecological psychology, delays in perception and action are impossible, and delay compensation mechanisms are unnecessary.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 219 - 220
Copyright
Copyright ©Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gibson, E. J. (1994) Has psychology a future? Psychological Science 5:69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Reed, E. S. (1996) Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. E. & Turvey, M. T. (1999) Ecological foundations of cognition: II. Degrees of freedom and conserved quantities in animal-environment systems. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6:111–23.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. E. & Wagman, J. B. (2001) Explanatory burdens and natural law: Invoking a field description of perception-action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:905–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turvey, M. T. (1992) Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology 4:173–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turvey, M. T. (2004) Impredicativity, dynamics, and the perception-action divide. In: Coordination dynamics: Issues and trends. Vol. 1. Applied complex systems, ed. Jirsa, V. K. & Kelso, J. A. S., pp. 1–20. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Turvey, M. T. & Shaw, R. E. (1999) Ecological foundations of cognition: I. Symmetry and specificity of animal-environment systems. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6:95–110.Google Scholar
Wagman, J. B. & Carello, C. (2001) Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecological Psychology 13:173–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagman, J. B. & Carello, C. (2003) Haptically creating affordances: The user-tool interface. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 9:175–86.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagman, J. B. & Malek, E. A. (in press) Perception of affordances for walking under a barrier from distal and proximal points of observation. Ecological Psychology.Google Scholar