Proximal and Distal Perception: Reciprocity is the key

A summary presentation on "Lenay, C. (2021). Perceiving at a distance: enaction, exteriority and possibility–a tribute to John Stewart. "
Explains how distal perception differs from proximal perception in terms of sensorimotor contigency and reciprocity.

Transcript

1. Proximal and Distal Perception: Reciprocity is the key Embodied Cognitive Science Unit Kanon Kobayashi kanon.kobayashi.kk @ gmail.com Mar.8th 2022 Lenay, C. (2021). Perceiving at a distance: enaction, exteriority and possibility ‒a tribute to John Stewart. Adaptive Behavior, 29(5), 485-503.
2. Abstract • Aim: offer a new approach of perception regarding an object at a distant, in exteriority within enactive approaches ① explain distal perception from individual sensorimotor approach→fail ② account for spatial perception (autopoietic enactive approach + interindividual interactions ) • Experimental design： perceptual crossing • Suggestion: separation is constituted by non-reciprocity.
3. Brief Introduction • Lenay proposes the condition of naturalization of spatial exteriority experience cf) theoretical model(J.Stewart, 1992) Cognition=autopoiesis(know-how of living being maintaining existence ) Lenay Stewart “ʼobjectʼ and ʻsubjectʼ are intrinsically inseparable” Stewart doesnʼt account for the perception of distant object Stewart focuses too heavily on the individual instead of promoting role of interaction
4. Brief Introduction • Lenay proposes the condition of naturalization of spatial exteriority experience cf) theoretical model(J.Stewart, 1992) Cognition=autopoiesis(know-how of living being maintaining existence ) Lenay Stewart “ʼobjectʼ and ʻsubjectʼ are intrinsically inseparable” Stewart doesnʼt account for the perception of distant object Stewart focuses too heavily on the individual instead of promoting role of interaction
5. Background- Autopoietic enactive approach • Living being = autonomous system, whose activity is organized according to autopoietic normativity • Emergence of normativity in nature: the norm of self-maintenance • a continuity between cognitive and biological normativity derive Stewart
6. Contents • Aim: offer a new approach of perception regarding an object at a distant, in exteriority within enactive approaches ① explain distal perception from individual sensorimotor approach→fail ② account for spatial perception (autopoietic enactive approach + interindividual interactions ) • Experimental design： perceptual crossing • Suggestion: separation is constituted by non-reciprocity.
7. Perception of a distant object Explanation using sensory substitution system The "Tactile Television" by P.Bach-y-Rita et al. Perception of proximity at first usage→ distance by mastery Convention: “reason from perceptual knowledge” 1. have representations of sensory data and external objects 2. discover a causal relationship between them Lenay 2021: “realize from perception itself” (enactive approach) Perception content is constituted in the couling between the organism and its environment Image from Valdés et al. (2019).
8. Digital Glove • First usage: perception of tactile stimuli related to movements ←[proximal events] • By mastery: perception of direction & distance of a target, where sensations are replaced by perception of a distant target ʻlaw of sensorimotor contingencyʼ Lenay, Canu, & Villon, (1997) Simplest interaction between sensations and actions Switch(a change in the type of rule linking actions and sensory feedback) Rule of a spatial coincidence between point of action (the position of the sensor) and position of the perceived object Rule associates an infinite number of possible positions (sensor positions) for the same position of the object.
9. Digital Glove Determination of distance is explained by a law of sensorimotor contingency →It can be represented by a curve in the mathematical space of possible actions sensation Mastery of the ʼlaw of sensorimotor contingencyʼ of a distal perception can be mastery of a form explored proximally. Perception of distance can always be replaced by perception of shape of a curve in the space describing actions =
10. Digital Glove Mathmatically: no functional difference between proximal interpretation (perception of curveʼs shape) and distal interpretation (perception of target position) Proximal tactile exploration with a finite receptive field, allowing the perception of shape Distal visual exploration with an infinite receptive field, allowing locating distant target To account for the perception of distance a law of sensorimotor contingency + something? necessarily reciprocal only possibly reciprocal The separation constructing exteriority stems from non-reciprocal perception Lenay claims a gulf between the two = the reciprocity or not of perceptions in an interindividual encounter
11. Contents • Aim: offer a new approach of perception regarding an object at a distant, in exteriority within enactive approaches ① explain distal perception from individual sensorimotor approarch→fail ② account for spatial perception (autopoietic enactive approach + interindividual interactions ) • Experimental design： perceptual crossing • Suggestion: separation is constituted by non-reciprocity.
12. Reciprocal perceptual crossing experiments →study difference between perceiving and being perceived (Lenay & Stewart, 2012) actions :movements of a receptor field sensory :a single all-or nothing tactile stimulation Reciprocity: necessary
13. Lenay 2021 : Biased Perceptual Crossing Hypothesis: spatial exteriority experience through the difference between perceiving an object and being an object of perception =by the absence of reciprocity between different perceptual activities meeting(encounter) space Distance in depth Reciprocal sensation Interindividual interaction Reciprocity possible Reciprocity necessary Reciprocity not possible Our eyes meet +See without being seen Touch& Being touched No lures No fixed objects
14. Results • a point of attraction for movements of two subjects at CES
15. Discussions • CES is a point of attraction of the interaction dynamic, which depends on the distance between the participants Unassured reciprocity→increase possibility to meet the other perceptual crossing + gradation of the possibility of reciprocity Necessary reciprocity proximal interaction obliged to pay attention to the other impossible reciprocity distal interaction a loss of control over their attention separation Distinction← between perceiving body and perceived body-object →Confusion Unintentional common movement towards CES
16. Ontological proposition • Reciprocity: reaction of the perceived object to the body-object that perceives it →modifying the perceptual activity • In the case of distal perception, the same sensation can occur for an infinity of • Biased perceptual crossing: distal separation to be well characterized as a possibility of non-reciprocity • Enactivism: body-object is necessary ↑no separation between perceiving body and body-object • Everyone recognizes the presence of others through their body-object. different possibilities of reciprocity = possible distances motor sensation coupling