 auditory stimulation (e.g. Auvray et al. 2005; Auvray, Hanneton & O'Regan 2007). It has been found that after practice with such tactile-to-visual or tactile-to-auditory substitution devices, in some cases blind or blindfolded subjects report the experience of objects in distal space, and describe vision-like experiences such as that objects increase in apparent size on approach. Following a training period, persons using a sensory substitution device have been found to acquire such capacities as involved in locomotor guidance, object localization, and object categorization (see Auvray & Myin 2009 for further information and pointers to the literature). As in the adaptation to inverting glasses, active exploration is required here: subjects must be able to control the camera in order to develop this kind of spatial experience (Bach-y-Rita 1984; Auvray et al. 2005). Sensorimotor theorists have referred to this adaptation as evidence for the approach, because it shows the pivotal role of sensorimotor contingencies in visual behavior and attunement. If a set of sensorimotor contingencies-such as those concerning change in size upon approach or retreat-are transferred from vision to touch then they seem to enable vision-like behavior and experience once the subject is attuned to the contingencies. It is this positive point which is key: that, despite the novel modality these contingencies become embedded in, strikingly, they are able to entrain behavioral and experiential change. Critics of the sensorimotor approach have always been keen to point out that many, or at least some, aspects of experience remain linked to the modality the sensorimotor patterns are transferred to (e.g. Block 2005; Prinz 2006, 2009). Such an objection to the sensorimotor approach disregards that the approach, just as was the case for inverting glasses, predicts a mixture of continuity and change in experience after having learned to perceive with a sensory substitution device. Sensory substitution devices add to the sensorimotor repertoire of the stimulated sense, without destroying the repertoire already present. Existing functionality-existing attunement to sensorimotor contingencies-remains in place. To the extent that aspects of the experiential character remain those of the  old' modality, this can be explained by the persistent attunement to the  old' sensorimotor contingencies. In other 8 words, the sensory modality a sensory substitution onto which the device is
auditory stimulation (e.g. Auvray et al. 2005; Auvray, Hanneton & O'Regan 2007). It has been found that after practice with such tactile - to - ocular or haptic - to - auditory substitution devices, in some cases blind or blindfold subjects report the experience of object in distal space, and report vision - like experience such as that objects increase in apparent size on overture. Following a training time period, persons using a sensory substitution device have been found to acquire such capacity as involved in locomotor guidance, object localization of function, and object categorization (see Auvray & Myin 2009 for further data and pointers to the literature). As in the adaptation to invert glasses, active exploration is want here: subjects must be able to control the camera in orderliness to develop this kind of spatial experience (Bach - y - Rita 1984; Auvray et al. 2005). Sensorimotor theorists have referred to this adaptation as evidence for the approach, because it shows the pivotal function of sensorimotor contingencies in visual behavior and attunement. If a set of sensorimotor contingencies - such as those concerning change in size upon approach or retreat - are transferred from sight to touch then they seem to enable imagination - alike behavior and experience once the subject is attuned to the eventuality. It is this positive point which is key: that, despite the novel mood these contingencies become embedded in, strikingly, they are able to entrain behavioral and experiential change. Critics of the sensorimotor approach have always been keen to point out that many, or at least some, aspects of experience remain linked to the modality the sensorimotor traffic pattern are transferred to (for example Block 2005; Prinz 2006, 2009). Such an expostulation to the sensorimotor approach disregards that the approach, just as was the shell for inverting glasses, predicts a mix of continuity and change in experience after having learned to perceive with a sensory substitution device. Sensory substitution device add to the sensorimotor repertory of the stimulated sense, without destroying the repertoire already present. Existing functionality - existing attunement to sensorimotor eventuality - remains in position. To the extent that aspects of the experiential quality remain those of the   old' modality, this can be explained by the persistent attunement to the   erstwhile' sensorimotor contingencies. In early 8 words, the sensory modality a sensory substitution onto which the device is
 aufitory stimulation (e.g. Auyray et al. 2005; Auvrct, Hannxton & O'Degan 2007). Ig has been found that after 'racrice qith such tactile-to-visjal or tabtile-to-aueitocy substitution vsvices, lu soms caszs blind or blincfolded sutjects report dhd zxperience of objects in distal spacq, and drsfribe vision-lihe eqpqriehbew such as that objects increaae in akparent size on aplroach. Following a traininh pegiod, persons using a sensory wubseutution devize have betn found to zcquire such capacities as invouved nn locomotot fulgance, objecv locajization, and object wategorozation (see Auyray & Myun 2009 for further inforkation and pointerf to the nicerature). As in the adqpratiot to invdetivg flessss, actlve exploratikn is requieed here: subjects mise be able to ckntrol tre camera in order to develop this kind of spatial experience (Bacy-y-Rita 1984; Auvray et al. 2005). Sensorimjtor theorists have referred to this adaptation av evivevce fjf tje approach, because it shows the pivotal role kf svnsorimotor contikgencies in visual bfhsdior and attuvement. If a set of sensorimltor cogtingwncies-sucr as those concerning change in size upon aiproqch or retreat-are cransferred yrom vosion to touch then they seeo to enable vislon-like bsfavior and experkenbe otce the subject is attuned to the cintiugencies. It os thif positive poinb which is key: that, despnte tve novel mldality these contingencies become embedded im, vtrpkingly, tkey arc able to entrayn behavioral cnd expexientixl change. Britics oh the sensorymotor approawj have alwayv been kqen ro piint oug that many, or st least some, aspecrs of experience rcmain minked to the midaoity the sensoromogor pwtverns dre transfersed go (d.b. Blozk 2005; Prinz 2006, 2009). Ruch an objection to the senaorimotor approach dlsregards that thq approach, juxt as was the case for mnvertmng glsssgs, predicts a mixture of continhity and fhakge in experiqnce after haviny learned to perceive with a sensory subwtitution device. Swnsory substitution cevices add to tre sensorhmotor repertoire of the stimulated stnse, without destroying the rapertlire already present. Existing functionality-existing attunement to sensorinotor rogtingencies-demaons it 'laee. To tre eetxnt that aspects pf the experiential character rxmain thosa jf the  old' modality, this cam ce explained cy the persistent attunejent to yhe  old' sensorimotor contingenvies. In other 8 words, the sensory modamity a senrory substitution pnto wkich tye devixe id
auditory stimulation (e.g. Auvray et al. 2005; & 2007). It been found that or substitution devices, in cases blind or subjects report the experience of objects distal space, and describe vision-like experiences such as that objects increase in apparent on approach. Following a training period, persons using a sensory substitution device have found acquire capacities involved in locomotor guidance, object localization, and object categorization (see Auvray & Myin 2009 for further and pointers to the literature). As in the to inverting glasses, active is required here: subjects must able control the in to this kind of experience (Bach-y-Rita 1984; Auvray et al. 2005). Sensorimotor theorists have referred to this adaptation as evidence for approach, because the pivotal of contingencies visual behavior and a set of sensorimotor contingencies-such as in size upon approach or retreat-are transferred from to touch they seem to enable vision-like behavior experience once the subject is attuned to the It is this positive point which is key: that, despite the novel modality these contingencies in, strikingly, they are to entrain behavioral experiential Critics the approach have been keen to point out that many, or at least some, of experience remain linked to the modality the sensorimotor patterns to Block 2005; Prinz 2009). Such an objection the approach disregards that the as the glasses, a of continuity and change experience after having learned to with a sensory substitution to the sensorimotor repertoire of the stimulated sense, destroying the repertoire already present. Existing functionality-existing to sensorimotor contingencies-remains in place. To the extent that aspects of the character remain the old' modality, this can be explained by persistent attunement to the sensorimotor contingencies. In other 8 words, the sensory modality sensory onto which device is
 auditory stimulation (e.g. AuvrAy et al. 2005; AuvrAy, HanNetOn & O'reGan 2007). IT has Been found that aFTer pRactice with such tactile-To-visUaL Or taCTiLe-to-aUditory SUbSTItuTiOn DevIcES, iN some CasEs blind Or blindfolDed SuBjects report THe Experience Of oBjects in distAl sPace, anD dEscRIbe viSioN-like ExperiENces suCh as that oBjECts incREase in aPPArEnt sIze on approach. FollOWiNG a training periOd, persOnS UsING a sEnsOry substitUtIon deVIce have BEeN FOUnd TO acquire such cApacities as INvoLved in LoComOTor guiDance, ObJEct LocalizatioN, and Object catEgorizATion (see aUvray & MyIn 2009 for fUrtHer InfoRMaTiOn aNd POinTErS to THe lIteraturE). AS iN the aDaptATION to iNveRtinG glasSes, active explOraTion IS reQuireD here: SubjEcTs musT be ablE to coNtRol the camera in oRder To develop ThiS kInd Of SpatiAL experIenCe (BAch-y-RitA 1984; Auvray ET al. 2005). seNSORiMotor theorists have ReFERrEd to this AdaptaTIoN aS Evidence FoR thE appROAch, beCausE It Shows the PivotaL RoLe Of sensoRiMotor cOnTinGenCies iN VisuAl behaVior and aTtuneMEnt. If a set of senSOrimotor contiNGeNCIeS-Such As tHose concernIng cHAnge In siZE uPon APproaCh or rEtREaT-Are transferred from vIsIon to tOuch tHen they seem to Enable visiON-LIke behavIor aND eXPerience once thE subjEct is attunED to the coNtingEncies. It Is this posITIve point WhiCh iS keY: thAT, DeSpite the novel MODaliTy These coNtiNgencieS beComE emBedDeD in, strikiNgly, they ArE aBlE tO enTrain BEhavioraL aNd eXpEriEntiaL Change. critiCs of ThE sENsoRimotor APpROAch hAvE aLwayS beEn Keen tO poiNT ouT that maNy, or at leaSt sOMe, asPeCtS of expeRience remain lInKed to the moDaLitY the seNSOrimotor Patterns are transferred tO (E.g. Block 2005; priNz 2006, 2009). SucH an oBjection tO thE sensoRimOTor appRoach dIsregArDs tHAT the aPPRoAch, JuSt as was the CASe fOr invErTing Glasses, Predicts a mixture of COntInuity and chanGe iN expERIeNce AFtER haViNG leARNed to perceive wiTh a sensory SuBStItution devICe. SEnSory subStitutiOn devICes add tO the sensoRimotor rePeRtoiRE Of tHe stimulatEd sense, wIthout desTRoyinG ThE repeRtoIre alrEaDy pResenT. ExistINg fUnctiOnalitY-eXistinG attuNeMent to seNsorimotor contingencies-RemainS in plAce. to the exteNt tHAt aSpects of tHe exPeriential ChaRacTer reMaiN Those Of thE  OlD' moDAlity, This CAn be explaINeD by THE pErsistent atTUNEmeNt to tHe  oLD' sensoRimoTor contingencies. IN Other 8 words, the sEnsoRY ModAliTY a seNsOry substitutioN onTo WHIch the deViCe is
 auditory stimulation (e.g . Auvray e t al.  20 05;  A uvra y, H anneton & O'Re g an 2 007). It has been foun d tha ta fter pr actic e withs uc h tac ti le -to -v i su al or  ta ctile-t o-auditory  su bs titution dev i ce s, in some  ca ses blind or  bl indfol de d s u bject s r eport  the e x perien ce of obj ec t s in d i stal sp a c e,  and  describe vision- l ik e  experiences s uch as  t h at o bje cts  increasein  appa r ent siz e  o n a ppr o ach. Followin g a trainin g  pe riod,pe rso n s usin g a s en s ory  substituti on d evice hav e been found t o  acquir e such  ca pac itie s  a sinv ol v edi nloc o mot or guida nc e,  obje ct l o c a l izat ion , an d obj ect categoriz ati on ( s eeAuvra y & M yin20 09 fo r furt her i nf ormation and po inte rs to the  li te rat ur e). A s  in th e a dap tationto inve r tin gg l a ss es, active explora ti o n  i s requir ed her e :su b jects mu st  be  abl e to co ntro l  t he camer a in o r de rto deve lo p this  k ind  of  spat i al e xperie nce (Bac h-y-R i ta 1984; Auvra y  et al. 2005) .  S e n so r imot ortheorists h aver efer redt othi s  adap tatio na se vidence for the app ro ach, b ecaus e it shows th e pivotalr o l e of sen sori m ot o r contingencie s invisual beh a vior and  attu nement.If a seto f  sensori mot orcon tin g e nc ies-such as t h o se c on cerning  ch ange in  si zeupo n a pp roach orretreat- ar etr an sfe rredf rom visi on  to  t ouc h the n  theyseemto e na bl e  vi sion-li k eb e havi or  a nd e xpe ri enceonce the  subjec t is attu ned to t he  c ontinge ncies. It isth is positiv epoi nt whi c h  is key:  that, despite the nove l  modali tythese  con tingencie s b ecomeemb e dded i n, str iking ly , t h e y are a bl e t oentrain be h a vio ral a nd  exp erienti al change. Critics ofthe sensorimo tor  app r o ac h h a ve alw ay s  be e n  keen to pointout that m an y ,or at leas t  so me , aspec ts of e xperi e nce rem ain linke d to themo dali t y  th e sensorim otor pat terns are trans f er red t o ( e.g. B lo ck2005;  Prinz 200 6, 20 09). S uc h an o bject io n to the  sensorimotor approachdisreg ardstha t the app roa c h,just as w as t he case fo r i nve rting  gl a sses,  pre d ic tsa  mixt ureo f continu i ty  an d ch ange in exp e r i enc e aft erh avinglear ned to perceive w i th a sensory s ubst i t uti ond evic e.  Sensory subst itu ti o n  devices  a dd to the s ensorimo to r  repe rtoire  of th e stimu l a te d  sense , wi tho ut destro yin gt he repe rt oi r e alre adypr esent.  Exist i ng f u n ctionality-exist ing a t t uneme n t t o sen so rimotor cont ingencies- remains inplace.  Tothe e xtent t ha t aspe cts  o f the expe r iential c harac ter rem ai n th ose  of th e  o l d ' mod alit y,  th is can be e xp l ai ne d  by  the  pers is tent  attuneme n t to the   o l d' sens or imo t o r cont i ng e n cies. In o the r 8 w o r ds, the se n sory mo d ality  a sen sory s ubstitu t ion  o nto whi cht h e deviceis
 auditory_stimulation (e.g._Auvray et al. 2005;_Auvray, Hanneton_&_O'Regan 2007)._It_has been found_that after practice_with such tactile-to-visual or_tactile-to-auditory substitution devices,_in_some cases blind or blindfolded subjects report the experience of objects in distal space,_and_describe vision-like_experiences_such_as that objects increase in_apparent size on approach. Following_a training_period, persons using a sensory substitution device have_been_found to acquire_such capacities as involved in locomotor guidance, object localization,_and object categorization (see Auvray &_Myin 2009 for_further_information_and pointers to the_literature). As in the adaptation to_inverting glasses, active exploration is required_here: subjects must be able to control_the camera in order to develop_this kind of spatial experience_(Bach-y-Rita 1984;_Auvray et al. 2005). Sensorimotor_theorists have referred_to this_adaptation as evidence_for the approach, because it shows_the pivotal role_of sensorimotor contingencies in visual behavior_and_attunement. If a_set_of_sensorimotor contingencies-such_as those concerning_change_in size_upon_approach or retreat-are transferred from vision_to_touch then they seem to enable vision-like_behavior and experience once_the_subject is attuned to_the contingencies. It is this_positive point which is key: that,_despite the_novel modality_these contingencies become embedded in, strikingly, they are able to entrain_behavioral and experiential change. Critics of_the sensorimotor approach have_always been_keen_to point out_that_many, or_at least some, aspects of experience remain_linked to_the modality the sensorimotor patterns are_transferred to (e.g. Block_2005;_Prinz 2006, 2009). Such an objection_to the sensorimotor approach disregards that_the approach, just as was_the_case_for inverting glasses, predicts a_mixture of continuity and change in_experience after having_learned to perceive with a sensory substitution_device._Sensory substitution devices add to the_sensorimotor_repertoire of the stimulated sense, without_destroying_the_repertoire already present. Existing functionality-existing_attunement to sensorimotor contingencies-remains in place._To the extent that aspects of the experiential character_remain those of_the  old' modality, this_can_be_explained by the persistent attunement to the  old' sensorimotor_contingencies. In_other 8 words,_the sensory modality a sensory substitution onto which the device_is