ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Perceiving affordances and the problem of visually indiscernible kinds.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Context-Sensitive Conscious Interpretation and Layer-5 Pyramidal Neurons in Multistable Perception.Brain and behavior · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, I defend the claim that we can perceptually experience what objects afford when we engage with objects belonging to natural or artificial categorical high-level kinds. Experiencing affordances perceptually positions us to act in specific ways. The main aim of this study was to argue that this view has explanatory advantages over alternative views. An increasingly popular view within the philosophy of perception, most famously defended by Susanna Siegel, claims that we sometimes visually experience natural and artificial objects as belonging to categorical high-level kinds. When visually experiencing a lemon, one does not only experience its low-level properties such as shape and color, sometimes one also experiences the object as a lemon. A challenge arises when attempting to explain what happens when one experiences an object that is experientially indistinguishable from another object, yet these objects belong to different high-level categorical kinds. For instance, if someone perceptually experiences a lemon as a lemon, her experience can be considered as accurately representing or presenting a lemon. However, if the subject perceptually experiences a lemon-shaped soap bar, which cannot be discriminated from a real lemon by sight alone, the experience is deemed inaccurate because there is no real lemon present. The problem is that such a judgment seems counterintuitive; unlike with hallucinations and illusions, there seems to be nothing wrong with how the object appears. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how the mistake could be a perceptual mistake. I will first present arguments supporting the claim that when we visually encounter objects such as lemons, we sometimes also perceive the affordances of these objects-what they provide or offer us. I will further argue that this perspective on affordances offers a more compelling explanation than other alternative accounts when it comes to our perception of visually indistinguishable objects that nonetheless belong to categorically distinct high-level kinds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.