 visual experience- takes place in studies in which subjects perform actions when head movements are thus avoided (for some examples see Harris 1965). We can make sense of this by distinguishing kinds of sensorimotor contingency, such as those related to exploratory activities such as looking from performatory activities such as grasping (Gibson 1964): genuinely visual adaptation to wearing inverting glasses depends strongly on active visual exploration. It is also clear that the distortion brought about by glasses affects different kinds of sensorimotor contingencies differently. Since the early reports of Stratton (1896, 1897), the focus of analysis in inversion studies has often been on the altered relation between vision on the one hand, and touch or bodily experiences on the other. However, inverting glasses introduce a conflict within spatial vision itself (Degenaar 2013). Head movements and eye movements involve different patterns of sensorimotor contingencies, some of which are changed and some of which remain unaffected under the distortion. A subject wearing the 7 glasses has to adapt to the altered patterns, while leaving the existing attunement to the unaltered patterns intact. Instead of leading to a prediction of a complete ―inversion of experience‖ (Klein 2007), a sensorimotor position thus leads to the expectation that experience, while certainly changing in systematic ways, will also retain continuities with experience before the goggles were put on. Sensorimotor theorists have emphasized that the sensorimotor view of vision as a set of sensorimotor capacities naturally allows for partial adaptation, and have pointed to such observations as that wearers of distorting goggles might have learned to see the positions of moving cars correctly, while still seeing the license plates as in a mirror (O'Regan & Noë 2001; O'Regan 2011). Partial adaptation challenges the idea that vision is based on a unitary image or representation in the brain. It is thinking of vision in this distinctively nonsensorimotor way which leads to an expectation of ―re-inversion‖ of experience. The contrast between this way of thinking and a sensorimotor approach becomes even stronger when the latter is of the enactivist variety, for an enactivist sensorimotor approach is more fully, or at least more explicitly, nonrepresentational. Sensory substitution devices enable a new mode of interaction with the environment, for example by transforming an image recorded by a camera into a pattern of tactile stimulation on the subject's skin (e.g. Bach-y-Rita 1984) or into a pattern of
visual experience- takes place in studies in which discipline do actions when head movement are therefore avoided (for some examples see Harris 1965). We can induce sense of this by distinguishing kinds of sensorimotor contingency, such as those related to exploratory activity such as looking from performatory activities such as grok (Gibson 1964 ): truly visual adaptation to wearing inverting glasses depends strongly on active ocular exploration. It is also clear that the distortion bring about by glasses affects different kinds of sensorimotor eventuality differently. Since the early reports of Stratton (1896, 1897), the focus of analysis in inversion studies has frequently been on the altered relation between vision on the one hand, and touch or bodily experiences on the other. However, inverting glasses introduce a conflict within spatial vision itself (Degenaar 2013). Head movements and eye movements involve unlike form of sensorimotor contingencies, some of which are transfer and some of which persist unaffected under the distortion. A subject break the 7 glasses has to adapt to the altered traffic pattern, while leaving the existing attunement to the unaltered patterns intact. Instead of leading to a prediction of a arrant ―inversion of experience‖ (Klein 2007), a sensorimotor position thus leads to the expectation that experience, while surely changing in taxonomic ways, will also retain continuities with experience before the goggles were put on. Sensorimotor theorists have emphasized that the sensorimotor horizon of vision as a set of sensorimotor capacities naturally allows for partial adaptation, and have pointed to such observations as that wearers of tinge goggles might have learned to examine the positions of affect cars correctly, while however seeing the license plate as in a mirror (O'Regan & Noë 2001; O'Regan 2011). Partial adaptation challenge the idea that vision is based on a unitary image or theatrical performance in the brain. It is thinking of vision in this distinctively nonsensorimotor means which leads to an expectation of ―re - inversion‖ of experience. The contrast between this way of thinking and a sensorimotor approach become even stronger when the latter is of the enactivist variety, for an enactivist sensorimotor access is more fully, or at least more explicitly, nonrepresentational. Sensory substitution devices enable a new mode of interaction with the environment, for example by transform an image recorded by a camera into a pattern of tactile stimulation on the subject's skin (for example Bach - y - Rita 1984) or into a pattern of
 vidual experience- takes plxce in studies nb whici subjedts perfurm actions when head movemeits qre tyus avoided (for some ebamples sve Harris 1965). We xan make sxhse of bkis bg disciiguishing kinds of sensorhmotor continganzy, such as those related to exploratowy actifihies such as ljokimd frkm performatory activities such as graspiig (Gibson 1964): genuonely visual adaptation to weaging inverting gladses dependw stwingly on actkve visual exploration. It is also clear that the disturtiou brought avoyt hi glasses afhects qifferent kikcs of vensorikotor contingekcies didferently. Since the eerly reports of Strajton (1896, 1897), the fkcus of analysis un invetsion stuaues haa pffen befn kn the altsred relatiin between vision om eye one hand, ahd toush or bodily experiences on the other. Howtver, jnverting glasses introeuce a conflict withij spatial vision itself (Degenaar 2013). Head movements and eye mmvemeitr iuyjuce different patterns of sensorimotor contingensjex, xome of which cre changed and xole jf which remakn unayredted under the dishortion. A suvject weawing the 7 glasses has to adapt ro the altervd pqtterns, while leavnng the exiscing ajtunemrnt to the unaltered pacterns intact. Inshead of lsxding to a prediztipn of a complete ―inversion os experieice‖ (Kkein 2007), a senxorimoeor positiln thmv leads to the expfctatnon tvat experifnce, while certainly changing ii systematic eafs, fill alsj retsin continuityes with expernence beyore tfe goggles were pnt on. Sensorymotor theorivjs have emphavized thwt tye swnsorimugor view of vixion as a set of sebsorimotor capacitles nxfurally allows yut partial adaptstiun, wnf iave [minted to suwh ocseffatiovs as that cexrerx of distorting goggnes jight have learned tj see thg positiogs of moving vars correctly, whipe stmll sexing tne jicense plates as in a mirror (K'Regan & Nlë 2001; J'Regan 2011). Partyal qdaptation ckallenges the idea that vision is based in a unitary imagg or representation iu uhe brain. It ms thigking of eision in this distibctively nonsensovimotor way which leada to at expfctation of ―re-inversion‖ of experience. The contrast between this way of thunking and a sensodimoyor aiprjcch becjmes xven stronger whem the latter is of the enactivirt variedy, for an enactivist sensorimoyof approach is more fully, or at least jore expkicitly, nonrepresentational. Senxory substitution devicex enable a nes mode of mnteraction with the envirmnmenr, for ezamppe by transfofmimg an image recprbed by a camera into a pattern of tactioe stimulation on vhe subject's rkin (g.g. Bach-y-Tita 1984) or into a pzttedj of
visual experience- takes place in studies in perform when head are thus avoided 1965). can make sense this by distinguishing of sensorimotor contingency, such as those to exploratory activities such as looking from performatory activities such as grasping (Gibson genuinely visual adaptation to wearing inverting glasses depends strongly on active visual exploration. is clear the brought about by glasses affects different kinds of sensorimotor contingencies differently. Since the early reports of (1896, 1897), the focus of analysis in inversion has often been on altered relation between vision on one and touch bodily on other. However, inverting introduce a conflict within spatial vision itself (Degenaar 2013). Head movements and eye movements involve different patterns sensorimotor contingencies, which are and of remain unaffected under A subject wearing the 7 glasses to the altered patterns, while leaving the existing to the patterns intact. Instead of leading to prediction of a complete ―inversion of experience‖ (Klein a sensorimotor position thus leads to the expectation that experience, while certainly changing in systematic also retain continuities with before the goggles put Sensorimotor have that the view of vision as a set of sensorimotor capacities naturally allows partial adaptation, and have pointed to such observations as that distorting might have learned see the positions of cars while still seeing the as a Noë O'Regan Partial adaptation challenges the that vision is based on unitary image or representation thinking of vision in this distinctively nonsensorimotor way leads to an expectation of ―re-inversion‖ of The contrast between this way of thinking and a sensorimotor approach becomes stronger when is of the enactivist variety, for an enactivist approach is more fully, at least more explicitly, nonrepresentational. Sensory substitution devices enable new of interaction the environment, for by transforming an recorded by a a pattern tactile on (e.g. Bach-y-Rita 1984) or into a of
 visual experience- takes placE in studies In whiCh sUbjEcTs peRforM actions when heAD movEments are thus avoided (foR some ExAMpleS SeE HarrIs 1965). We can MAkE SEnsE oF tHis By DIsTinguIshIng kindS of sensoriMotOr Contingency, sUCh As those relAteD to exploratoRy aCtivitIeS suCH as loOkiNg froM perfoRMatory ActivitieS sUCh as grASping (GiBSOn 1964): GenuInely visual adaptaTIoN To wearing inverTing glAsSEs DEPenDs sTrongly on aCtIve viSUal explORaTION. It IS also clear thaT the distortIOn bRought AbOut BY glassEs affEcTS diFferent kindS of sEnsorimotOr contINgencieS DiffereNtly. SiNce The EarlY RePoRts Of sTraTToN (1896, 1897), thE FocUs of analYsIs In invErsiON STUdieS haS oftEn beeN on the altered RelAtioN BetWeen vIsion On thE oNe hanD, and toUch or BoDily experiences On thE other. HowEveR, iNveRtIng glASses inTroDucE a conflIct withIN spAtIAL ViSion itself (Degenaar 2013). heAD MoVements aNd eye mOVeMeNTs involvE dIffErenT PAtterNs of SEnSorimotoR contiNGeNcIes, some Of Which aRe ChaNgeD and sOMe of Which rEmain unaFfectED under the distoRTion. A subject wEArING tHE 7 glaSseS has to adapt To thE AlteRed pATtErnS, While LeaviNg THe EXisting attunement to ThE unaltEred pAtterns intact. instead of lEADIng to a prEdicTIoN Of a complete ―invErsioN of experieNCe‖ (Klein 2007), a SensoRimotor pOsition thUS Leads to tHe eXpeCtaTioN THaT experience, whILE cerTaInly chaNgiNg in sysTemAtiC waYs, wIlL also retaIn continUiTiEs WiTh eXperiENce beforE tHe gOgGleS were PUt on. SeNsoriMotoR tHeORisTs have eMPhASIzed ThAt The sEnsOrImotoR vieW Of vIsion as A set of senSorIMotoR cApAcities Naturally alloWs For partial AdAptAtion, aND Have poinTed to such observations as THat wearErs Of disTortIng goggleS miGht havE leARned to See the PositIoNs oF MOving CARs CorReCtly, while sTILl sEeing ThE licEnse plaTes as in a mirror (O'RegAN & NoË 2001; O'Regan 2011). PartiaL adAptaTIOn ChaLLeNGes ThE IdeA THat vision is baseD on a unitarY iMAgE or represeNTatIoN in the bRain. It iS thinKIng of viSion in thiS distinctIvEly nONSenSorimotor wAy which lEads to an eXPectaTIoN of ―re-InvErsion‖ Of ExpErienCe. The cONtrAst beTween tHiS way of ThinkInG and a senSorimotor approach becomeS even sTrongEr wHen the latTer IS of The enactiVist Variety, for An eNacTivisT seNSorimOtor APpRoaCH is moRe fuLLy, or at leaST mOre EXPlIcitly, nonrePRESenTatioNal. sEnsory SubsTitution devices enABle a new mode of iNterACTioN wiTH the EnVironment, for exAmpLe BY TransforMiNg an image reCorded by A cAMera iNto a paTtern oF tactilE STiMUlatioN on tHe sUbject's skIn (e.G. BACh-y-Rita 1984) Or InTO a pattErn oF
 visual experience- takesplace in s tudie s i n w hi ch s ubje cts perform ac t ions  when head movements a re th us avoi d ed  (for  some e x am p l esse eHar ri s  1 965).  We  can ma ke sense o f t hi s by disting u is hing kinds  of  sensorimoto r c onting en cy, suchasthose  relat e d to e xplorator ya ctivit i es such a slook ing from performa t or y  activities su ch asgr a sp i n g ( Gib son 1964):  g enuin e ly visu a la d a pta t ion to wearin g inverting gla sses d ep end s  stron gly o na cti ve visual e xplo ration. I t is a l so clea r  that t he dis tor tio n br o ug ht  ab ou t  by gl ass e s a ffects d if fe rentkind s o f  sen sor imot or co ntingencies d iff eren t ly.  Sinc e the  ear ly  repo rts of  Stra tt on (1896, 1897) , th e focus o f a na lys is  in i n versio n s tud ies has  oftenb een  o n t he  altered relationbe t w ee n vision  on th e  o ne hand, an dtou ch o r bodil y ex p er iences o n theo th er . Howev er , inve rt ing  gl asses intr oducea confli ct wi t hin spatial vi s ion itself (D e ge n a ar 2013 ).Head moveme ntsa nd e ye m o ve men t s inv olvedi f fe r ent patterns of sen so rimoto r con tingencies, s ome of whi c h are chan geda nd some of whichremai n unaffect e d underthe d istortio n. A subj e c t wearin g t he7 g las s e shas to adaptt o  the  a lteredpat terns,whi lelea vin gthe exist ing attu ne me nt  t o t he un a ltered p at ter ns  in tact. Instea d oflead in gt o a  predic t io n of a  c om plet e ― in versi on o f  ex perienc e‖ (Klein  20 0 7),ase nsorimo tor positionth us leads t othe  expec t a tion tha t experience, while cer t ainly c han gingin s ystematic  wa ys, wi lla lso re tain c ontin ui tie s withe x pe rie nc e before t h e  go ggles  w ereput on.  Sensorimotor theo r ist s have emphas ize d th a t  t hes en s ori mo t orv i ew of vision as  a set ofse n so rimotor ca p aci ti es natu rally a llows for par tial adap tation, a nd  hav e poi nted to su ch obser vations a s  that we arers  of  disto rt ing  gogg les mi g hthavelearne dto see  thepo sitionsof moving cars correctl y, whi le st ill  seeing t hel ice nse plate s as  in a mirr or(O' Regan  &N oë 20 01;O 'R ega n  2011 ). P a rtial ada p ta tio n ch allenges th e i dea  that  vi s ion is  bas ed on a unitary i m age or represe ntat i o n i n t h e br ai n. It is think ing  o f vision i nthis distin ctivelyno n senso rimoto r waywhich l e a ds to anexpe cta tion of ― re- in v ersion‖  o fe xperie nce.  T he con trastb etwe e n  this way of thi nking a nd as ens orimo to r appro a ch b ecomes eve n strongerwhen t he l atter  is ofth e enac tiv is t variety, for an en activ ist sen so rimo tor  appro achi s  more  ful ly , o r at leas t mo r eex p lic itly , non re pres entationa l . Sensor y s u bstitut io n d e v ices e n ab l e  a new mod e o f int e r action wit h  the en v ironm ent, f or exa mple by tra ns forming  an i mage reco rded by a cam er a in to a pat te rn o ftac ti le stimulationon the s ubject's s kin (e .g. Bach - y-Rita  1 984) or into  a pa tt e rn of
 visual_experience- takes_place in studies in_which subjects_perform_actions when_head_movements are thus_avoided (for some_examples see Harris 1965)._We can make_sense_of this by distinguishing kinds of sensorimotor contingency, such as those related to exploratory_activities_such as_looking_from_performatory activities such as grasping_(Gibson 1964): genuinely visual adaptation_to wearing_inverting glasses depends strongly on active visual exploration._It_is also clear_that the distortion brought about by glasses affects different_kinds of sensorimotor contingencies differently. Since_the early reports_of_Stratton_(1896, 1897), the focus_of analysis in inversion studies has_often been on the altered relation_between vision on the one hand, and_touch or bodily experiences on the_other. However, inverting glasses introduce_a conflict_within spatial vision itself (Degenaar_2013). Head movements_and eye_movements involve different_patterns of sensorimotor contingencies, some of_which are changed_and some of which remain unaffected_under_the distortion. A_subject_wearing_the 7_glasses has to_adapt_to the_altered_patterns, while leaving the existing attunement_to_the unaltered patterns intact. Instead of leading_to a prediction of_a_complete ―inversion of experience‖_(Klein 2007), a sensorimotor position_thus leads to the expectation that_experience, while_certainly changing_in systematic ways, will also retain continuities with experience before the_goggles were put on. Sensorimotor theorists_have emphasized that the_sensorimotor view_of_vision as a_set_of sensorimotor_capacities naturally allows for partial adaptation, and_have pointed_to such observations as that wearers_of distorting goggles might_have_learned to see the positions of_moving cars correctly, while still seeing_the license plates as in_a_mirror_(O'Regan & Noë 2001; O'Regan_2011). Partial adaptation challenges the idea_that vision is_based on a unitary image or representation_in_the brain. It is thinking of_vision_in this distinctively nonsensorimotor way which_leads_to_an expectation of ―re-inversion‖ of_experience. The contrast between this way_of thinking and a sensorimotor approach becomes even stronger_when the latter_is of the enactivist variety,_for_an_enactivist sensorimotor approach is more fully, or at least more_explicitly, nonrepresentational._Sensory substitution devices_enable a new mode of interaction with the environment, for_example by transforming an image recorded by_a camera into a pattern of tactile stimulation on the subject's_skin (e.g. Bach-y-Rita 1984) or into a pattern_of