The Separation of Action and Perception and the Issue of Affordances

Michaels's (2000) reassessment of the relation between action and perception is endorsed. In alignment with Milner and Goodale (1995), she proposed a separation between action (i.e., control of movement) and perception (i.e., the explicit knowledge of environmental properties, including animal-referential ones), the separation being based on the reliance on different optical variables. However, how should the concept of affordances be incorporated into this scheme? We present data showing that affordances, both when perceived and acted on, are not susceptible to optical illusions. Because action and perception are distinguished on the basis of information used, but are also proposed to interact, it is hypothesized that, dependent on the task goal, "information for action" may be used in perception, and "information for perception" may be used in action. Participants may become more attuned to information for action when perception serves to acquire explicit knowledge about what the environment affords for action.

[1]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[2]  G. J. Savelsbergh,et al.  Grasping tau. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[4]  M. Goodale,et al.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand , 1995, Current Biology.

[5]  M. A. Goodale,et al.  The removal of binocular cues disrupts the calibration of grasping in patients with visual form agnosia , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  Jeroen B. J. Smeets,et al.  Multiple information sources in interceptive timing , 1997 .

[7]  M. Goodale,et al.  The objects of action and perception , 1998, Cognition.

[8]  Do we report what we see and do , 1998 .

[9]  M. Goodale,et al.  Frames of Reference for Perception and Action in the Human Visual System , 1998, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[10]  D Regan,et al.  Accuracy of estimating time to collision using binocular and monocular information , 1998, Vision Research.

[11]  G. Savelsbergh,et al.  Timing a one-handed catch. II. Adaptation to telestereoscopic viewing. , 1999, Experimental brain research.

[12]  Simon K. Rushton,et al.  Weighted combination of size and disparity: a computational model for timing a ball catch , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[13]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  The size-distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  S Bennett,et al.  Timing a one-handed catch. I. Effects of telestereoscopic viewing. , 1999, Experimental brain research.

[15]  C. Michaels.  Information, Perception, and Action: What Should Ecological Psychologists Learn From Milner and Goodale (1995)? , 2000 .

[16]  Keith Davids,et al.  Discriminating the role of binocular information in the timing of a one-handed catch , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  C. Michaels,et al.  Information and action in punching a falling ball , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.