Seeing and retinal stability: On a sensorimotor argument for the necessity of eye movement for sight

Philosophical Psychology 26 (2):263 - 266 (2013)
Sensorimotor theorists of perception have argued that eye movement is a necessary condition for seeing on the basis that subjects whose retinal images do not move undergo a form of blindness. I show that the argument does not work.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA
    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Wayne S. Murray (2003). The Eye-Movement Engine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):494-495.
    John R. Skoyles (1997). Another Variety of Vision. Trends in Neurosciences 20 (1):22-23.
    Tom Roberts (2010). Understanding 'Sensorimotor Understanding'. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):101-111.
    Boris M. Velichkovsky (1997). On the Variety of “Deictic Codes”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):757-757.

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    14 ( #95,211 of 1,088,384 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,384 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.