CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Embodied and Extended CognitionPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Ecological Psychology and Enaction Theory: Divergent Groundings

Open access
Heft, Harry·2020·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00991PMC PMC7271815
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Both ecological psychology and enaction theory offer an alternative to long-standing theoretical approaches to perception that invoke post-perceptual supplemental processes or structures, e.g. mental representations, to account for perceptual phenomena. They both do so by taking actions by the individual to be essential for an account of perception and cognition. The question that this paper attempts to address is whether ecological psychology and enaction theory can be integrated into a stronger non-representational alternative to perception than either one can offer on its own. Doing so is only possible if most of the basic tenets and concepts of ecological psychology and enaction theory are compatible. Based on an examination of the role that sensations play within each approach; the manner in which each treats the concept of information; and how each conceptualizes an organism’s boundaries, it is concluded that a synthesis of the two approaches is not possible. Particular attention is paid to the concept of sensations, whose limitations were an impetus for the development of ecological psychology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00991

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Proponents of the social and the physical approaches have criticized enactivism for very different reasons.

    “Conversely, although proponents of the social and the physical approach have been critical of enactivism, they have done so for very different reasons (cf.Fultot et al., 2016;Heft, 2020).”

    From Productive pluralism: The coming of age of ecological psychology. (2024) · cites this paper as Heft, 2020

    Heft critiques enaction theory from an ecological-psychology perspective, identifying disagreements about sensations, information, and organism boundaries (Concluding Comments; page not indicated). The paper does not discuss proponents of a social approach criticizing enactivism or compare their reasons with those of the ecological approach. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. DiPaolo E. A. Buhrmann T. Barandiaran X. E. (2017). Sensorimotor Life: An Enactive Proposal. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2. Lewontin R. (2000). The Triple Helix. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Sedgwick H. (1986). “ Space perception,” in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. 1: Sensory Processes and Perception, eds Boff K. R. Kaufman L. Thomas J. P. (New York, NY: Wiley), 21.21– 21.57.
  4. Warren W. H. (2020). “ Perceiving surface layout: ground theory, affordances, and the objects of perception,” in Perception as Information Detection: Reflections on Gibson’s Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, eds Wagman J. Blau J. (New York, NY: Routledge), 151– 173.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Heft, H.
Affiliations
Denison University (US)
Corresponding author
Heft, Harry
ORCID
Heft, Harry
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
11
Pages
991-991
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00991
PMC
PMC7271815
OpenAlex
W3032624565
Cited by
69
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6
FWCI
5.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
ecological psychology, enaction theory, perception, mental representation, sensation, concept of information, perception and action, theoretical integration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review