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.