Abstract
In replying to the commentaries, I focus on issues relating to theory, empirical practice (i.e., to how research on events and affordances has been conducted), and empirical research that I think is needed. I reiterate my argument that because they differ qualitatively, affordances might be perceived without prior or concurrent perception of the underlying events. I suggest that research on event perception might, in principle, inform research on the perception of affordances, but existing research has made no explicit attempt to do this. I conclude by stressing the need for new research and for exponents of event perception to identify a theoretical motivation, within ecological theory, for why events should be perceived.