The separation of action and perception and the issue of affordances

Michaels's (2000) reassessment of the relation between action and perceptio n is endorsed. In alignment with Milner and Goodale (1995), she proposed a separation between action (i.e., control of movement) and perception (i.e., the explicit knowledge of environmental properties, including animal-refer ential ones), the separation being based on the reliance on different optic al variables. However, how should the concept of affordances be incorporate d into this scheme! We present data showing that affordances, both when per ceived and acted on, are not susceptible to optical illusions. Because acti on and perception are distinguished on the basis of information used, but a re also proposed to interact, it is hypothesized that, dependent on the tas k goal, "information for action" may he used in perception, and "informatio n for perception" may be used in action. Participants may become more attun ed to information tor action when perception serves to acquire explicit kno wledge about what the environment affords for action.