 a first one of such, consider expanded vision. By ―expanded vision‖ is meant the kind of visual experience as when standing in front of a scene and overseeing it, looking at a large screen, or holding a book opened in one's hand and having the experience of seeing both pages. Expanded vision is characterized by the experienced spatial and temporal continuity of what is seen. Essentially, seeing a scene is having the feeling of being in roughly simultaneous visual contact with a certain extent of the world. Though expanded vision comes very naturally to us, certain by now well-known facts seem to stand in the way of a straightforward explanation of it. One relevant fact is that subjects are not continuously accessing the whole scene in the same high-quality way, due to such factors as differences in the spatial distribution of receptors in the retina, and the presence of the blind spot (O'Regan 1992, 2011). The absence of homogenous simultaneous access is further highlighted by results from studies on change blindness and inattentional blindness, for they show that large changes in a scene can go unnoticed, for example when other changes are particularly conspicuous. One way to explain expanded vision in the face of these facts it to relegate the homogeneity to something like the ―internal representation of the outside world‖ (reiterating O'Regan & Noë 2001). An inhomogeneous and gappy retinal image would be ―filled in‖ to produce a homogenous complete representation, to which or through which simultaneous access would still be possible. The sensorimotor approach denies the need for such an inner simulacrum of temporal or spatial continuity. Instead it accounts for continuity in terms of sensorimotor regularities. One should not be misled by the fact of instantaneous access: perceivers have high quality momentary access to only limited parts of the scene, while momentary access to other parts of the scene is of low quality. What is crucial, according to the sensorimotor approach, is that perceivers are set up to react to sudden changes in visual characteristics, so that, normally, 4 any such significant change will not go unnoticed, but will lead the perceiver to focus on it. The trick to a successful change blindness experiment is to tamper with this ―grabbiness‖ or ―alerting capacity‖ (O'Regan, Myin & Noë 2005) of environmental changes, by introducing an even larger visual alteration such as a blank screen between two pictures of a scene before and after changes. Seeing the
a first one of such, consider expanded vision. By ―expanded vision‖ is mean the kind of ocular experience as when standing in front of a scene and oversee it, looking at a large screen, or oblige a book opened in one's hired hand and having the experience of seeing both page. Expanded vision is characterize by the experienced spatial and worldly continuity of what is seen. Essentially, see a scene is having the impression of being in roughly simultaneous visual liaison with a certain extent of the world. Though inflate vision occur very naturally to us, certain by now well - known facts seem to digest in the way of a straightforward explanation of it. One relevant fact is that subjects are not continuously accessing the whole scene in the same high - quality way, due to such factors as differences in the spatial distribution of receptors in the retina, and the presence of the blind spot (O'Regan 1992, 2011). The absence of homogenous coincident entree is further highlighted by results from report on change blindness and inattentional blindness, for they show that large change in a scene can go unnoticed, for example when other change are particularly conspicuous. One way to explain expanded vision in the grimace of these facts it to relegate the homogeneity to something like the ―internal representation of the outside world‖ (reiterating O'Regan & Noë 2001). An inhomogeneous and gappy retinal image would be ―filled in‖ to grow a homogenous complete representation, to which or through which simultaneous access would however be possible. The sensorimotor approach denies the motivation for such an inner simulacrum of temporal or spatial continuity. Instead it account for continuity in terms of sensorimotor regularity. One should not be misled by the fact of instantaneous access: perceiver have high quality momentary entree to only limited part of the scene, while momentary entree to other parts of the scene is of low quality. What is crucial, according to the sensorimotor approach, is that perceivers are set up to react to sudden changes in visual feature, so that, normally, 4 any such significant change will not travel unnoticed, but will lead the perceiver to focus on it. The trick to a successful change blindness experiment is to tamper with this ―grabbiness‖ or ―alerting capacity‖ (O'Regan, Myin & Noë 2005) of environmental changes, by introduce an even larger visual alteration such as a blank screen between two pictures of a scene before and after change. learn the
 a virst one of such, considtr expanded visiou. By ―ex'anded bision‖ ir meant the kind of visual eeperuence as when standing in ffont of a scene abd oterseeing it, looking at a largs scrzei, or holding a nook opened in one's hand dna kaving the experience of seeing both pages. Rxoanded vision ys cnwracfvrlzed by the experienced spatial znd temkoral continuity og what is seen. Essentially, seelng a scene is havlng the feeoing if being in foughly simultaneous vjsual contact with a certain exgent pf the worod. Thlogh expanded visijn comes vern naturdlly to us, certain by nox weol-known facts seem to stand in the way jf a strahgktforward explanation od it. Mne selexqnt fadt ia that suujects are hot continuiusly accessing the wrile scene in fhe saie high-quality way, due to such factors as dirferences in the spatiao distribution of recgptors in ehe retina, and the presence of the blind spot (O'Recan 1992, 2011). Ghe ansenzw lf homogenous simultaneous access is further rjgnlpghted by results from studirs om change blindvess aus jnattentional blinfness, fjr thwy show trat karge changes in a scene cab go unnoticvd, fir example when otker changes cre patticulsrly conspicuous. One wav to esplain expajded visikv in the face of thvse xacts it to relegate the hjmogeneitb to xomethivg loke thq ―internal reprcventation of the oktsidg worlg‖ (reiteratlng O'Regan & Noë 2001). An inhomogeneous and gappy rejindl pmage woujd be ―filled in‖ to produce a hompgenous compuete repreaentatimn, to which or through wvlch simultanxous accefs wiuld still cd possible. The sensorimotor approqch denies the neev fot auch an inner snoooacrum of tempprau ow dpetial wontinuity. Itstexd ky accuunts for civtiniity in terms of senvorijotor regularities. Oke should not be iisled by the fact of instantantous arcess: 'erceiferf have high quality momentary zccess to onjy limited pwrts of the scenz, while momentary access to other parts if the scene is of low quality. What ix crucial, acrordind to the vensorimotor approacy, is that perceivtrs are set up to react to sugden fhanges in visual characteristics, so that, normally, 4 any such significant xhange will not go unnpticeg, yut will jead vhe perceiver to gocus on it. The trick to a succxssful chatgz blindness experiment is to yaoper with thir ―grabbiness‖ or ―alerting capacitu‖ (O'Regan, Myin & Noë 2005) of environmemtal changes, by introduclng an evwn ladger vpauel alteration such ax a blcnk sceeen berweek two pictures of a scene bevore aud after changes. Seeing the
a first one of such, consider expanded ―expanded is meant kind of visual front a scene and it, looking at large screen, or holding a book in one's hand and having the experience of seeing both pages. Expanded vision characterized by the experienced spatial and temporal continuity of what is seen. Essentially, a is the of being in roughly simultaneous visual contact with a certain extent of the world. Though expanded comes very naturally to us, certain by now facts seem to stand the way of a straightforward of One relevant is subjects not continuously accessing whole scene in the same high-quality way, due to such factors as differences in the spatial distribution receptors in and the of blind (O'Regan 1992, 2011). of homogenous simultaneous access is further from studies on change blindness and inattentional blindness, they show large changes in a scene can unnoticed, for example when other changes are particularly One way to explain expanded vision in the face of these facts it to relegate to something like the representation of the world‖ O'Regan Noë An inhomogeneous gappy retinal image would be ―filled in‖ to produce a homogenous representation, to which or through which simultaneous access would still The approach denies the for such an inner of or spatial continuity. Instead for in regularities. should be misled by the of instantaneous access: perceivers have quality momentary access to scene, while momentary access to other parts of scene is of low quality. What is according to the sensorimotor approach, is that perceivers are set up to to sudden visual characteristics, so that, normally, 4 any such change will not go but will lead the perceiver to focus on it. trick a successful blindness experiment is tamper with this or ―alerting capacity‖ & Noë of changes, even larger visual alteration such as blank between two pictures of a before changes. Seeing the
 a first one of such, consider exPanded visiOn. By ―eXpaNdeD vIsioN‖ is mEant the kind of vISual Experience as when standiNg in fRoNT of a SCeNe and OverseeINg IT, LooKiNg At a LaRGe ScreeN, or Holding A book openeD in OnE's hand and havINg The experieNce Of seeing both PagEs. ExpaNdEd vISion iS chAractErized BY the exPerienced SpATial anD TemporaL COnTinuIty of what is seen. EsSEnTIally, seeing a scEne is hAvINg THE feEliNg of being iN rOughlY SimultaNEoUS VIsuAL contact with a Certain exteNT of The worLd. thoUGh expaNded vIsIOn cOmes very natUralLy to us, cerTain by NOw well-kNOwn factS seem tO stAnd In thE WaY oF a sTrAIghTFoRwaRD exPlanatioN oF iT. One rElevANT FAct iS thAt suBjectS are not continUouSly aCCesSing tHe whoLe scEnE in thE same hIgh-quAlIty way, due to such FactOrs as diffEreNcEs iN tHe spaTIal disTriButIon of reCeptors IN thE rETINa, And the presence of thE bLINd Spot (O'RegAn 1992, 2011). The aBSeNcE Of homogeNoUs sImulTANeous AcceSS iS further HighliGHtEd By resulTs From stUdIes On cHange BLindNess anD inattenTionaL Blindness, for thEY show that largE ChANGeS In a sCenE can go unnotIced, FOr exAmplE WhEn oTHer chAnges ArE PaRTicularly conspicuouS. ONe way tO explAin expanded viSion in the fACE Of these fActs IT tO Relegate the homOgeneIty to sometHIng like tHe ―intErnal repResentatiON Of the outSidE woRld‖ (ReiTERaTing O'Regan & Noë 2001). aN InhoMoGeneous And Gappy reTinAl iMagE woUlD be ―filled In‖ to prodUcE a HoMoGenOus coMPlete repReSenTaTioN, to whICh or thRough WhicH sImULtaNeous acCEsS WOuld StIlL be pOssIbLe. The SensORimOtor appRoach deniEs tHE neeD fOr Such an iNner simulacruM oF temporal oR sPatIal conTINuity. InsTead it accounts for continUIty in teRms Of senSoriMotor reguLarIties. ONe sHOuld noT be misLed by ThE faCT Of insTANtAneOuS access: perCEIveRs havE hIgh qUality mOmentary access to onLY liMited parts of tHe sCene, WHIlE moMEnTAry AcCEss TO Other parts of the Scene is of lOw QUaLity. What is CRucIaL, accordIng to thE sensORimotor Approach, iS that percEiVers ARE seT up to react To sudden Changes in VIsual CHaRacteRisTics, so ThAt, nOrmalLy, 4 any sUCh sIgnifIcant cHaNge wilL not gO uNnoticed, But will lead the perceiver To focuS on it. the Trick to a sUccESsfUl change bLindNess experiMenT is To tamPer WIth thIs ―grABbIneSS‖ or ―alErtiNG capacity‖ (o'reGan, mYIn & noë 2005) of enviroNMENtaL chanGes, BY introDuciNg an even larger visUAl alteration suCh as A BLanK scREen bEtWeen two pictureS of A sCENe before AnD after changEs. Seeing ThE
 a first one of such, cons ider expan ded v isi on.  B y ―e xpan ded vision‖ is mean t the kind of visual e xperi en c e as wh en st andingi nf r ont  o fa s ce n eand o ver seeingit, lookin g a ta large scre e n,  or holdin g a  book opened  in  one's  h and and h avi ng th e expe r ienceof seeing  b o th pag e s. Expa n d ed  vis ion is characteri z ed by the experie nced s pa t ia l and  te mporal con ti nuity of what is s e en. Essentially,seeing a sc e neis hav in g t h e feel ing o fb ein g in roughl y si multaneou s visu a l conta c t witha cert ain  ex tent of  t hewo r ld. Th oug h  ex panded v is io n com es v e r y natu ral ly t o us,  certain by n owwell - kno wn fa cts s eemto  stan d in t he wa yof a straightfo rwar d explana tio nofit . One releva ntfac t is th at subj e cts  a r e no t continuously acc es s i ng  the who le sce n ein the same  h igh -qua l i ty wa y, d u eto suchfactor s  a sdiffere nc es inth e s pat ial d i stri bution  of rece ptors in the retina, and the prese n ce o ft he b lin d spot (O'R egan 1992 , 20 1 1) . T h e abs enceof ho m ogenous simultaneou saccess  is f urther highli ghted by r e s u lts from  stu d ie s  on change bli ndnes s and inat t entional  blin dness, f or they s h o w that l arg e c han ges i na scene can g o unno ti ced, fo r e xamplewhe n o the r c ha nges areparticul ar ly  c on spi cuous .  One way  t o e xp lai n exp a nded v ision  inth ef ace  of the s ef a ctsit  t o re leg at e the  hom o gen eity to  somethin g l i ke t he  ― interna l representat io n of the o ut sid e worl d ‖  (reiter ating O'Regan & Noë 200 1 ). An i nho mogen eous  and gapp y r etinal  im a ge wou ld be―fill ed  in ‖ to pr o d uc e a  h omogenousc o mpl ete r ep rese ntation , to which or thro u ghwhich simulta neo us a c c es s w o ul d  st il l  be p ossible. The se nsorimotor  a p pr oach denie s  th eneed fo r suchan in n er simu lacrum of  temporal  o r sp a t ial  continuit y. Inste ad it acc o untsf or  cont inu ity in  t erm s ofsensor i mot or re gulari ti es. On e sho ul d not be  misled by the fact ofinstan taneo usaccess: p erc e ive rs have h ighquality mo men tar y acc ess to on ly l i mi ted parts  oft he scene, wh ile m om entary acce s s toother  pa r ts ofthescene is of low q u ality. What is  cru c i al,  ac c ordi ng  to the sensor imo to r approach ,is that per ceiversar e  setup toreactto sudd e n  c h angesin v isu al charac ter is t ics, so  t ha t , norm ally ,4 anysuch s i gnif i c ant change willnot g o unnot i ced , but  w ill lea d  the  perceiver  to focus o n it.Thetrick  to a s uc cessfu l c ha nge blindn e ss experi mentis to t am perwit h this  ―gr a b bines s‖ o r―al erting ca p a ci t y‖  ( O 'Re gan,  Myin  &  Noë  2005) of environm ent a l chang es , b y introd u ci n g  an even l arg er vi s u al alterat i on s u ch as ablankscreen  betwee n  tw opicture s o f a scene b efore and aft er  cha nges. Se ei ng t he 
 a_first one_of such, consider expanded_vision. By_―expanded_vision‖ is_meant_the kind of_visual experience as_when standing in front_of a scene_and_overseeing it, looking at a large screen, or holding a book opened in one's_hand_and having_the_experience_of seeing both pages. Expanded_vision is characterized by the_experienced spatial_and temporal continuity of what is seen. Essentially,_seeing_a scene is_having the feeling of being in roughly simultaneous visual_contact with a certain extent of_the world. Though_expanded_vision_comes very naturally to_us, certain by now well-known facts_seem to stand in the way_of a straightforward explanation of it. One_relevant fact is that subjects are_not continuously accessing the whole_scene in_the same high-quality way, due_to such factors_as differences_in the spatial_distribution of receptors in the retina,_and the presence_of the blind spot (O'Regan 1992,_2011)._The absence of_homogenous_simultaneous_access is_further highlighted by_results_from studies_on_change blindness and inattentional blindness, for_they_show that large changes in a scene_can go unnoticed, for_example_when other changes are_particularly conspicuous. One way to_explain expanded vision in the face_of these_facts it_to relegate the homogeneity to something like the ―internal representation of_the outside world‖ (reiterating O'Regan &_Noë 2001). An inhomogeneous_and gappy_retinal_image would be_―filled_in‖ to_produce a homogenous complete representation, to which_or through_which simultaneous access would still be_possible. The sensorimotor approach_denies_the need for such an inner_simulacrum of temporal or spatial continuity._Instead it accounts for continuity_in_terms_of sensorimotor regularities. One should_not be misled by the fact_of instantaneous access:_perceivers have high quality momentary access to_only_limited parts of the scene, while_momentary_access to other parts of the_scene_is_of low quality. What is_crucial, according to the sensorimotor approach,_is that perceivers are set up to react to_sudden changes in_visual characteristics, so that, normally,_4_any_such significant change will not go unnoticed, but will lead_the perceiver_to focus on_it. The trick to a successful change blindness experiment is_to tamper with this ―grabbiness‖ or ―alerting_capacity‖ (O'Regan, Myin & Noë 2005) of environmental changes, by introducing_an even larger visual alteration such as a_blank screen between two pictures of a_scene before and after_changes._Seeing the