David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):29-31 (2004)
Some data concerning visual illusions are hardly compatible with the perception–action model, assuming that only the perception system is influenced by visual context. The planning–control dichotomy offers an alternative that better accounts for some controversy in experimental data. We tested the two models by submitting the patient I. G. to the induced Roelofs effect. The similitude of the results of I. G. and control subjects favoured Glover's model, which, however, presents a paradox that needs to be clarified.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert Briscoe (2009). Egocentric Spatial Representation in Action and Perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2):423-460.
Similar books and articles
Mel Goodale (1997). Pointing the Way to a Unified Theory of Action and Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):749-750.
Charles E. Wright & Charles Chubb (2004). Planning Differences for Chromaticity- and Luminance-Defined Stimuli: A Possible Problem for Glover's Planning–Control Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):55-56.
Jos J. Adam & Ron F. Keulen (2004). FMRI Evidence for and Behavioral Evidence Against the Planning–Control Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):24-24.
David A. Westwood (2004). Planning, Control, and the Illusion of Explanation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):54-55.
Judy S. DeLoache (2004). Scale Errors by Very Young Children: A Dissociation Between Action Planning and Control. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):32-33.
P. Paolo Battaglini, Paolo Bernardis & Nicola Bruno (2004). At Least Some Electrophysiological and Behavioural Data Cannot Be Reconciled with the Planning–Control Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):24-25.
Melvyn A. Goodale & A. David Milner (2004). Plans for Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):37-40.
James G. Phillips, Thomas J. Triggs & James W. Meehan (2004). Planning and Control of Action as Solutions to an Independence of Visual Mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):46-47.
Scott Glover (2004). Separate Visual Representations in the Planning and Control of Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):3-24.
David A. Westwood & Melvyn A. Goodale (2001). Perception and Action Planning: Getting It Together. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):907-908.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #262,362 of 1,793,075 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #206,240 of 1,793,075 )
How can I increase my downloads?