Saving Time: How Attention Explains the Utility of Supposedly Superfluous Representations
Cognitive Critique 1 (1):101-114 (2009)
|Abstract||I contend that Alva Noë’s Enactive Approach to Perception fails to give an adequate account of the periphery of attention. Noë claims that our peripheral experience is not produced by the brain’s representation of peripheral items, but rather by our mastery of sensorimotor skills and contingencies. I offer a two-pronged assault on this account of the periphery of attention. The first challenge comes from Mack and Rock’s work on inattentional blindness, and provides robust empirical evidence for the semantic processing (and hence representation) of some wholly unattended stimuli. The second challenge draws on LaBerge’s theory of attention to provide a substantial advantage to peripheral representations, saving time whenever we shift the focus of our attention to something which had been in the periphery, allowing us to respond to that thing more quickly than would be possible if Noë’s account of perception were correct.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jason Ford (2008). Attention and the New Sceptics. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (3):59-86.
Shaun Gallagher (2005). Review of Alva Noë's Action in Perception. [REVIEW] Times Literary Supplement.
Ned Block (2013). The Grain of Vision and the Grain of Attention. Thought, A Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):170-184.
Christopher Mole (2011). The Metaphysics of Attention. In Christopher Mole, Declan Smithies & Wayne Wu (eds.), Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford University Press.
Brian McElree & Barbara Anne Dosher (2001). The Focus of Attention Across Space and Across Time. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1):129-130.
Victor A. F. Lamme & Rogier Landman (2001). Attention Sheds No Light on the Origin of Phenomenal Experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):993-993.
Carolyn Suchy-Dicey (2012). Inductive Parsimony and the Methodological Argument. Consciousness and Cognition 21 (2):605-609.
Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink (2005). Change Blindness, Representations, and Consciousness: Reply to Noe. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (5):219.
Max Coltheart (1999). Trains, Planes, and Brains: Attention and Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):152-153.
J. Kevin O'Regan & Alva Noë (2001). A Sensorimotor Account of Vision and Visual Consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):883-917.
Jakob Hohwy (2012). Attention and Conscious Perception in the Hypothesis Testing Brain. Frontiers in Psychology 3 (96).
Ernst Niebur (2001). Sensorimotor Contingencies Do Not Replace Internal Representations, and Mastery is Not Necessary for Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):994-995.
Added to index2011-01-07
Total downloads6 ( #154,724 of 722,867 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,867 )
How can I increase my downloads?