Visual space perception and action: Introductory remarks

Visual Cognition

Volumn 11, Issue 2-3, 2004, Pages 129-136

  Müsseler, Jochen ^a   van der Heijden, A H C ^b   Kerzel, Dirk ^c  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; EYE TRACKING; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION;

EID: 1542611421     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280344000455     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F. X., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5(6), 679-685.
2. Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological consideration of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395-419). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3. Bridgeman, B., Hendry, D., & Stark, L. (1975). Failure to detect displacement of the visual world during saccadic eye movements. Vision Research, 15(6), 719-722.
4. Fehrer, E., & Raab, D. (1962). Reaction time to stimuli masked by metacontrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 143-147.
5. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20-25.
7. Gordon, I. E. (1997). Theories of visual perception. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
8. Haffenden, A. M., & Goodale, M. A. (1998). The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 122-136.
9. Haffenden, A. M., & Goodale, M. A. (2000). Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vision Research, 40(10-12), 1597-1607.
10. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 869-937.
11. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. Milner, D., & Dyde, R. (2003). Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don't? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(1), 10-11.
13. Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 520-537). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Nakayama, K. (1994). James J. Gibson: An appreciation. Psychological Review, 101(2), 329-335.
15. Norman, J. (2002). Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 73-144.
16. Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamics systems approach to the development of perception and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. Ingle, M. A. Goodale, & R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp. 549-586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. von Helmholtz, H. (1866). Handbuch der physiologischen Optik [Handbook of physiological optics]. Hamburg, Germany: Voss.