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)
DOI 10.1080/09515089.2011.633699
 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: 23,316
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

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

29 ( #164,693 of 1,926,184 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #196,137 of 1,926,184 )

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.