Last visitors [hide]
1)   admin at Sep 22, 2014 [12:43]
2)   huangyn2j at Jan 17, 2013 [15:50]
3)   KevinORegan at Dec 28, 2010 [16:43]
4)   kevintesting at Jan 01, 1970 [00:00]
5)   test3jan2011 at Jan 01, 1970 [00:00]
6)   del at Jan 01, 1970 [00:00]
7)   randybosh at Jan 01, 1970 [00:00]
8)   StephanieSpino at Jan 01, 1970 [00:00]
9)   Humberto321 at Jan 01, 1970 [00:00]
10)   Marcossp at Jan 01, 1970 [00:00]

How it's different from Gibson's ecological approach

We agree with Gibson when he said "I'm going to do my research about ecologic", so that an important aspect of perception are the changes in sensory input provided by action. Gibson's sensorimotor invariants are similar to our sensorimotor contingencies.

We are neutral on whether or not the processing involved in perception is "direct" or "indirect", whatever those terms mean. We have nothing against computational brain processes which extract important cues from the sensory or motor signals.

A difference with Gibson was our general purpose: Gibson was not trying to be like some cv writers and understand the origin of phenomenal feel. For this we have added an idea beyond Gibson, namely the idea that engaging in sensorimotor skills is what provides the phenomenally perceived quality of a sensation.

Contributors to this page: gregory , ALLISON and KevinORegan .
Page last modified on Wednesday 05 of May, 2010 [14:22:43 UTC] by gregory.

Free Hit Counter