Respecting all constraints proposed by Firestone & Scholl (F&S), we have shown that perceived facial expressions of emotion depend on the congruency between bodily action (comfort/discomfort) and target emotion (happiness/anger) valence. Our studies challenge any bold claim against penetrability of perception and suggest that perceptual theory can benefit from demonstrations of how – under controlled circumstances – observer's states can mold expressive qualities.

Attention is often inextricably intertwined with perception, and it is deployed not only to spatial regions, but also to sensory dimensions, learned dimensions, and learned complex configurations. Firestone & Scholl's (F&S)'s tactic of isolating visual perceptual processes from attention and action has the negative consequence of neglecting interactions that are critically important for allowing people to perceive their world in efficient and useful ways.

We are consciously aware of visual objects together with the minute details that characterize each object. Those details are perceived instantaneously and in parallel. V1 is the only visual area with spatial resolution and topographical exactitude matching perceptual abilities. For cognition to penetrate perception, it needs to affect V1 image representation. That is unlikely because of the detailed parallel V1 organization and the nature of top-down connections, which can influence only large parts of the visual field.

Firestone & Scholl (F&S) rely on three problematic assumptions about the mind (modularity, reflexiveness, and context-insensitivity) to argue cognition does not fundamentally influence perception. We highlight evidence indicating that perception, cognition, and emotion are constructed through overlapping, distributed brain networks characterized by top-down activity and context-sensitivity. This evidence undermines F&S's ability to generalize from case studies to the nature of perception.

Fundamental differences between perception and cognition argue that the distinction can be maintained independently of cognitive penetrability. The core processes of cognition can be integrated under the theory of relational knowledge. The distinguishing properties include symbols and an operating system, structure-consistent mapping between representations, construction of representations in working memory that enable generation of inferences, and different developmental time courses.

In this commentary, we present two examples where perception is not only influenced by, but also in fact driven by, top-down effects: hallucinations and mental imagery. Crucially, both examples avoid all six of the potential confounds that Firestone & Scholl (F&S) raised as arguments against previous studies claiming to demonstrate the influence of top-down effects on perception.

Firestone & Scholl (F&S) consider the distinction between judgment and perception to be clear and intuitive. Their intuition is based on considerations about visual perception. That such a distinction is clear, or even existent, is less obvious in nonvisual modalities. Failing to distinguish between perception and judgment is therefore not a flaw in investigating top-down effects of cognition on perception, as the authors suggest. Instead, it is the result of considering the variety of human perception.

We argue that Firestone & Scholl (F&S) provide worthwhile recommendations but that their critique of research by Levin and Banaji (2006) is unfounded. In addition, we argue that F&S apply unjustified level of skepticism about top-down effects relative to other broad hypotheses about the sources of perceptual intelligence.

I applaud Firestone & Scholl (F&S) in calling for more rigor. But, although F&S are correct that some published work on top-down effects suffers from confounds, their sweeping claim that there are no top-down effects on perception is premised on incorrect assumptions. F&S's thesis is wrong. Perception is richly and interestingly influenced by cognition.

Contemporary neuroscience suggests that perception is perhaps best understood as a dynamically iterative process that does not honor cleanly segregated “bottom-up” or “top-down” streams. We argue that there is substantial empirical support for the idea that affective influences infiltrate the earliest reaches of sensory processing and even that primitive internal affective dimensions (e.g., goodness-to-badness) are represented alongside physical dimensions of the external world.

By limiting their review largely to studies measuring perceptual judgment, Firestone & Scholl (F&S) overstate their case. Evidence from inattentional blindness and emotion-induced blindness suggests that categorization and emotion shape what we perceive in the first place, not just the qualities that we judge them to have. The role of attention in such cases is not easily dismissed as “peripheral.”

Modern conceptions of brain function consider the brain as a “predictive organ,” where learned regularities about the world are utilised to facilitate perception of incoming sensory input. Critically, this process hinges on a role for cognitive penetrability. We review a mechanism to explain this process and expand our previous proposals of cognitive penetrability in visual recognition to social vision and visual hallucinations.

Firestone & Scholl (F&S) seem to believe that the viability of a distinction between perception and cognition depends on perception being encapsulated from top-down information. We criticize this assumption and argue that top-down effects can leave the distinction between perception and cognition fully intact. Individuating the visual system is one thing; the question of encapsulation is quite another.

Firestone & Scholl (F&S) examine, among other possible cognitive influences on perception, the effects of peripheral attention and conclude that these effects do not entail cognition directly affecting perception. Studies in neuroscience with other forms of attention, however, suggest that a stage of vision, namely late vision, is cognitively penetrated mainly through the effects of cognitively driven spatial and object-centered attention.

The investigation of top-down effects on perception requires a rigorous definition of what qualifies as perceptual to begin with. Whereas Firestone & Scholl's (F&S's) phenomenological demarcation of perception from cognition appeals to intuition, we argue that the dividing line is best attained at the functional level. We exemplify how this approach facilitates scrutinizing putative interactions between judging and perceiving.

Firestone & Scholl's (F&S) critique of putative empirical evidence for the cognitive penetrability of perception focuses on studies of neurologically normal populations. We suggest that a comprehensive exploration of the cognition–perception relationship also incorporate work on abnormal perception and cognition. We highlight the prominence of these issues in contemporary debates about the formation and maintenance of delusions.

We provide empirical examples to conceptually clarify some items on Firestone & Scholl's (F&S's) checklist, and to explain perceptual effects from an attentional and memory perspective. We also note that action and embodied cognition studies seem to be most susceptible to misattributing attentional and memory effects as perceptual, and identify four characteristics unique to action studies and possibly responsible for misattributions.

The main question that Firestone & Scholl (F&S) pose is whether “what and how we see is functionally independent from what and how we think, know, desire, act, and so forth” (sect. 2, para. 1). We synthesize a collection of concerns from an interdisciplinary set of coauthors regarding F&S's assumptions and appeals to intuition, resulting in their treatment of visual perception as context-free.

The visual system is influenced by action. Objects that are easier to reach or catch look closer and slower, respectively. Here, we describe evidence for one action-specific effect, and show that none of the six pitfalls can account for the results. Vision is not an isolate module, as shown by this top-down effect of action on perception.

Memory colour effects show that colour perception is affected by memory and prior knowledge and hence by cognition. None of Firestone & Scholl's (F&S's) potential pitfalls apply to our work on memory colours. We present a Bayesian model of colour appearance to illustrate that an interaction between perception and memory is plausible from the perspective of vision science.