Hostname: page-component-588bc86c8c-2zrg9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-30T11:40:13.341Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Perception, as you make it

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

David W. Vinson
Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA
Drew H. Abney
Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA
Dima Amso
Department of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI
Anthony Chemero
Department of Philosophy and Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
James E. Cutting
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Rick Dale
Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA
Jonathan B. Freeman
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY
Laurie B. Feldman
Psychology Department, University of Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY
Karl J. Friston
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United
Shaun Gallagher
Department of Philosophy, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN
J. Scott Jordan
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL
Liad Mudrik
School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo,
Sasha Ondobaka
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United
Daniel C. Richardson
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United
Ladan Shams
Psychology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Maggie Shiffrar
Office of Research and Graduate Studies, California State University, Northridge, Northridge, CA 91330.
Michael J. Spivey
Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA


The main question that Firestone & Scholl (F&S) pose is whether “what and how we see is functionally independent from what and how we think, know, desire, act, and so forth” (sect. 2, para. 1). We synthesize a collection of concerns from an interdisciplinary set of coauthors regarding F&S's assumptions and appeals to intuition, resulting in their treatment of visual perception as context-free.

Open Peer Commentary
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Amaral, D. G., Behniea, H. & Kelly, J. L. (2003) Topographic organization of projections from the amygdala to the visual cortex in the macaque monkey. Neuroscience 118(4):1099–120.Google Scholar
Anton-Erxleben, K. & Carrasco, M. (2013) Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: Linking behavioural and neurophysiological evidence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(3):188200. doi:10.1038/nrn3443.Google Scholar
Bruce, V., Langton, S. & Hill, H. (1999) Complexities of face perception and categorisation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(3):369–70.Google Scholar
Bullier, J. (1999) Visual perception is too fast to be impenetrable to cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(3):370.Google Scholar
Carrasco, M. (2011) Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research 51:1484–525.Google Scholar
Cavanagh, P. (1999) The cognitive penetrability of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(3):370–71.Google Scholar
Chua, K. W. & Gauthier, I. (2015) Learned attention in an object-based frame of reference. Journal of Vision 15(12):899–99.Google Scholar
Clavagnier, S., Falchier, A. & Kennedy, H. (2004) Long-distance feedback projections to area V1: Implications for multisensory integration, spatial awareness, and visual consciousness. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 4(2):117–26.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. J. (1997) Auditory grouping. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1(9):327–33.Google Scholar
David, S. V., Vinje, W. E. & Gallant, J. L. (2004) Natural stimulus statistics alter the receptive field structure of V1 neurons. The Journal of Neuroscience 24(31):69917006.Google Scholar
Dayan, P., Hinton, G. E., Neal, R. & Zemel, R. (1995) The Helmholtz machine. Neural Computation 7(5):889904.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983) Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friston, K (2010) The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11:127–38.Google Scholar
Gandhi, S. P., Heeger, D. J. & Boynton, G. M. (1999) Spatial attention affects brain activity in human primary visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96(6):3314–19.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. L. (1980) Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 290(1038):181–97.Google Scholar
Hill, W. E. (1915) My wife and my mother-in-law. Puck Nov. 6, p. 11.Google Scholar
Hupé, J. M., James, A. C., Payne, B. R., Lomber, S. G., Girard, P. & Bullier, J. (1998) Cortical feedback improves discrimination between figure and background by V1, V2 and V3 neurons. Nature 394(6695):784–87.Google Scholar
Jastrow, J. (1899) The mind's eye. Popular Science Monthly 54:299312.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. S. (2013) The wild ways of conscious will: What we do, how we do it, and why it has meaning. Frontiers in Psychology 4:574.Google Scholar
Kapadia, M. K., Ito, M., Gilbert, C. D. & Westheimer, G. (1995) Improvement in visual sensitivity by changes in local context: Parallel studies in human observers and in V1 of alert monkeys. Neuron 15(4):843–56.Google Scholar
Kastner, S., Pinsk, M. A., De Weerd, P., Desimone, R. & Ungerleider, L. G. (1999) Increased activity in human visual cortex during directed attention in the absence of visual stimulation. Neuron 22(4):751–61.Google Scholar
Kastner, S. & Ungerleider, L. G. (2001) The neural basis of biased competition in human visual cortex. Neuropsychologia 39(12):1263–76.Google Scholar
Kveraga, K., Ghuman, A. S. & Bar, M. (2007b) Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain. Brain and Cognition 65(2):145–68.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Spivey, M. J. (2010) Making the invisible visible: Verbal but not visual cues enhance visual detection. PLoS ONE 5(7):e11452.Google Scholar
Markant, J. & Amso, D. (2013) Selective memories: Infants' encoding is enhanced in selection via suppression. Developmental Science 16(6):926–40.Google Scholar
Markant, J. & Amso, D. (2016) The development of selective attention orienting is an agent of change in learning and memory efficacy. Infancy 21(2): 154–76. doi: 10.1111/infa.12100.Google Scholar
Markant, J., Oakes, L. M. & Amso, D. (2015a) Visual selective attention biases contribute to the other-race effect among 9-month-old infants. Developmental Psychobiology 58(3):355–65. doi:10.1002/dev.21375.Google Scholar
Markant, J., Worden, M. S. & Amso, D. (2015b) Not all attention orienting is created equal: Recognition memory is enhanced when attention orienting involves distractor suppression. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 120:2840.Google Scholar
Motter, B. C. (1993) Focal attention produces spatially selective processing in visual cortical areas V1, V2, and V4 in the presence of competing stimuli. Journal of Neurophysiology 70(3):909–19. Available at: Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. (1999) Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(3):341–65.Google Scholar
Rao, R. P. & Ballard, D. H. (1999) Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience 2(1):7987.Google Scholar
Remez, R. E., Pardo, J. S., Piorkowski, R. L. & Rubin, P. E. (2001) On the bistability of sine wave analogues of speech. Psychological Science 12(1):2429.Google Scholar
Roepstorff, A. & Frith, C. (2004) What's at the top in the top-down control of action? Script-sharing and “top-top” control of action in cognitive experiments. Psychological Research 68(2–3):189–98.Google Scholar
Rutman, A. M., Clapp, W. C., Chadick, J. Z. & Gazzaley, A. (2010) Early top–down control of visual processing predicts working memory performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(6):1224–34.Google Scholar
Slotnick, S. D., Schwarzbach, J. & Yantis, S. (2003) Attentional inhibition of visual processing in human striate and extrastriate cortex. NeuroImage 19(4):1602–11.Google Scholar
Spratling, M. W. (2010) Predictive coding as a model of response properties in cortical area V1. The Journal of Neuroscience 30(9):3531–43.Google Scholar
Uncapher, M. R. & Rugg, M. D. (2009) Selecting for memory? The influence of selective attention on the mnemonic binding of contextual information. The Journal of Neuroscience 29(25):8270–79.Google Scholar
Zanto, T. P. & Gazzaley, A. (2009) Neural suppression of irrelevant information underlies optimal working memory performance. The Journal of Neuroscience 29(10):3059–66.Google Scholar
Zhang, P., Jamison, K., Engel, S., He, B. & He, S. (2011) Binocular rivalry requires visual attention. Neuron 71(2):362–69.Google Scholar