David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):907-908 (2001)
Hommel et al. propose that high-level perception and action planning share a common representational domain, which facilitates the control of intentional actions. On the surface, this point of view appears quite different from an alternative account that suggests that “action” and “perception” are functionally and neurologically dissociable processes. But it is difficult to reconcile these apparently different perspectives, because Hommel et al. do not clearly specify what they mean by “perception” and “action planning.” With respect to the visual control of action, a distinction must be made between conscious visual perception and unconscious visuomotor processing. Hommel et al. must also distinguish between the what and how aspects of action planning, that is, planning what to do versus planning how to do it.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bruce Bridgeman (2004). Defining Visuomotor Dissociations and an Application to the Oculomotor System. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):27-28.
Matthew R. Longo & Bennett I. Bertenthal (2004). Automaticity and Inhibition in Action Planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):44-45.
Melvyn A. Goodale & A. David Milner (2004). Plans for Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):37-40.
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.
Scott Glover (2004). Separate Visual Representations in the Planning and Control of Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):3-24.
Yann Coello & Yves Rossetti (2004). Planning and Controlling Action in a Structured Environment: Visual Illusion Without Dorsal Stream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):29-31.
J. Scott Jordan (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC)'s Framework May Leave Perception Out of the Picture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):890-890.
Zsuzsa Káldy & Ilona Kovács (2004). Is There an Independent Planning System? Suggestions From a Developmental Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):41-42.
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.
Bernhard Hommel, Jochen Müsseler, Gisa Aschersleben & Wolfgang Prinz (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A Framework for Perception and Action Planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):849-878.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #127,289 of 1,101,878 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #34,086 of 1,101,878 )
How can I increase my downloads?