Perceptual experiences of particularity

References

• Almäng, J. 2013. “The Causal Self-Referential Theory of Perception Revisited.” Dialectica 67 (1): 29–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, D. M. 1978. Universals and Scientific Realism. Vol. II: A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, D. M. 1997. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Atsma, J., A. Koning, and R. van Lier. 2012. “Multiple Object Tracking: Anticipatory Attention Doesn’t ‘Bounce’.” Journal of Vision 12 (13): 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, D. H., M. M. Hayhoe, P. K. Pook, and R. P. N. Rao. 1997. “Deictic Codes for the Embodiment of Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20: 723–767.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, D. L. M. 2001. “Instantiation as Partial Identity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (4): 449–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayne, T. 2009. “Perception and the Reach of Phenomenal Content.” The Philosophical Quarterly 59 (236): 385–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, O. 2019. “Two Conceptions of Phenomenology.” Philosophers’ Imprint 19 (37): 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biederman, I. 1987. “Recognition-by-components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding.” Psychological Review 94 (2): 115–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaser, E., Z. W. Pylyshyn, and A. O. Holcombe. 2000. “Tracking an Object Through Feature Space.” Nature 408 (6809): 196–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block, N. 2014. “Seeing-as in the Light of Vision Science.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1): 560–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, B. 2011. Perception and its Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, B. 2015. “The Object View of Perception.” Topoi 36 (2): 215–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. 2017. “Against Instantiation as Identity.” Philosophical Studies 174: 887–900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne, A. 2001. “Intentionalism Defended.” Philosophical Review 110 (2): 199–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. 2002. Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carrasco, M., and A. Barbot. 2019. “Attention Alters Appearance.” Current Opinion in Psychology 29: 56–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavanagh, P., and A. A. Alvarez. 2005. “Tracking Multiple Targets with Multifocal Attention.” Trends in Cognitive Science 9 (7): 349–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowling, S. 2014. “Instantiation as Location.” Philosophical Studies 167: 667–682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, C. 1994. “Tropes.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 94: 253–261.
   Google Scholar
• Dokic, J. 1998. “The Ontology of Perception: Bipolarity and Content.” Erkenntnis 48: 153–169.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, T., T. S. Horowitz, and E. K. Vogel. 2013. “Swapping or Dropping? Electrophysiological Measures of Difficulty During Multiple Object Tracking.” Cognition 126: 213–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehring, D. 2004. “Distinguishing Universals from Particulars.” Analysis 64 (4): 326–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehring, D. 2011. Tropes, Properties, Objects, and Mental Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fish, W. 2013. “High-level Properties and Visual Experience.” Philosophical Studies 162: 43–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller, S., and M. Carrasco. 2006. “Exogenous Attention and Color Perception: Performance and Appearance of Saturation and hue.” Vision Research 46: 4032–4047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giberman, D. 2016. “Indiscernibility Does not Distinguish Particularity.” Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 5 (4): 249–256.
   Google Scholar
• Gomes, A., and C. French. 2019. “How Naïve Realism Can Explain Both the Particularity and the Generality of Experience.” Philosophical Quarterly 69 (274): 41–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, E. J. 2016. “Representationalism and Perceptual Organization.” Philosophical Topics 44 (2): 121–148.
   Google Scholar
• Green, E. J. 2018. “What do Object Files Pick out?” Philosophy of Science 85 (2): 177–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heil, J. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, C. S. 2019. “Perceptual Existentialism Sustained.” Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-019-00160-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingworth, A., and S. L. Franconeri. 2009. “Object Correspondence Across Brief Occlusion is Established on the Basis of Both Spatiotemporal and Surface Feature Cues.” Cognition 113: 150–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummel, J. E. 2013. “Object Recognition.” In Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, edited by D. Reisburgm, 32–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jeshion, R. 2010. “Singular Thought: Acquaintance, Semantic Instrumentalism, and Cognitivism.” In New Essays on Singular Thought, edited by R. Jeshion, 105–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., A. M. Treisman, and B. J. Gibbs. 1992. “The Reviewing of Object Files: Object-Specific Integration of Information.” Cognitive Psychology 24 (2): 175–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klatzky, R. L. 1998. “Allocentric and Egocentric Spatial Representations: Definitions, Distinctions, and Interconnections.” In Spatial Cognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, edited by C. Freksa, C. Habel, and K. F. Wender, 1–17. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kubovy, M., and J. Wagemans. 1995. “Grouping by Proximity and Multistability in Dot Lattices: A Quantitative Gestalt Theory.” Psychological Science 6 (4): 225–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logue, H. 2012. “Why Naive Realism?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112: 211–237.
   Google Scholar
• Loux, M. J. 1978. Substance and Attribute. A Study in Ontology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Lowe, E. J. 2006. Four-category Ontology. A Metaphysical Foundations for Natural Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. 2005. “Perceptual Beliefs and Nonexperiential Looks.” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 237–256.
   Google Scholar
• MacBride, F. 1998. “Where are Particulars and Universals?” Dialectica 52 (3): 203–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macpherson, F. 2006. “Ambiguous Figures and the Content of Experience.” Nous (Detroit, Mich ) 40 (1): 82–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, M. 1992. “Sight and Touch.” In The Contents of Experience, edited by T. Crane, 196–215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M. G. F. 2002a. “Particular Thought and Singular Thoughts.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 51: 173–214.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M. G. F. 2002b. “The Transparency of Experience.” Mind & Language 17 (4): 376–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta, N. 2014. “The Limited Role of Particulars in Phenomenal Experience.” Journal of Philosophy 111 (6): 311–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melia, J. 2008. “A World of Concrete Particulars.” Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 4: 99–124.
   Google Scholar
• Montague, M. 2011. “The Phenomenology of Particularity.” In Cognitive Phenomenology, edited by T. Bayne and M. Montague, 121–140. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moreland, J. P. 2001. Universals. Chesham: Acumen.
   Google Scholar
• Nanay, B. 2012. “Perceiving Tropes.” Erkenntnis 77: 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Callaghan, C. 2008. “Object Perception: Vision and Audition.” Philosophy Compass 3 (4): 803–829.
   Google Scholar
• Orilia, F., and M. P. Paoletti. 2020. “Properties.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/properties/
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, S., and I. Rock. 1994. “Rethinking Perceptual Organization: The Role of Uniform Connectedness.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1 (1): 29–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinzmetal, W., H. Amiri, K. Allen, and T. Edwards. 1998. “Phenomenology of Attention: 1. Color, Location, Orientation, and Spatial Frequency.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24 (1): 261–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2007. Things and Places. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Qiu, F. T., and R. von der Heydt. 2005. “Figure and Ground in the Visual Cortex: V2 Combines Stereoscopic Cues with Gestalt Rules.” Neuron 47 (1): 155–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raftopoulos, A. 2009. Cognition and Perception. How Do Psychology and Neural Science Inform Philosophy? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reiland, I. 2014. “On Experiencing High-Level Properties.” American Philosophical Quarterly 51: 177–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiland, I. 2015. “Experience, Seemings, and Evidence.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96: 510–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rensink, R. A. 2000. “The Dynamic Representation of Scenes.” Visual Cognition 7 (1/2/3): 17–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rensink, R. A. 2001. “Change Blindness: Implications for the Nature of Visual Attention.” In Vision and Attention, edited by M. Jenkin and L. Harris, 169–188. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schellenberg, S. 2010. “The Particularity and Phenomenology of Perceptual Experiences.” Philosophical Studies 149: 19–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schellenberg, S. 2016. “Perceptual Particularity.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 (1): 25–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholl, B. J. 2007. “Object Persistence in Philosophy and Psychology.” Mind & Language 22 (5): 563–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholl, B. J. 2009. “What Have we Learned About Attention from Multiple-Object Tracking (and Vice Versa)?” In Computation, Cognition, and Pylyshyn, edited by D. Dedrick and L. Trick, 49–77. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schroer, R. 2014. “The Goldilocks Problem and the Specificity of Visual Phenomenal Content.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (3–4): 476–495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel, S. 2006. “Which Properties are Represented in Perception.” In Perceptual Experience, edited by T. S. Gendler and J. Hawthorne, 481–503. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skrzypulec, B. 2019. “Olfactory Objecthood.” Philosophia 47 (3): 881–900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soteriou, M. 2000. “The Particularity of Visual Perception.” European Journal of Philosophy 8 (2): 173–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tye, M. 1995. Ten Problems of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Boxtel, J. J. A., N. Tsuchiya, and C. Koch. 2010. “Consciousness and Attention: On Sufficiency and Necessity.” Frontiers in Psychology 1/217, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Marle, K., and B. J. Scholl. 2003. “Attentive Tracking of Objects Versus Substances.” Psychological Science 14 (5): 498–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernazzani, A. 2021. “Do we see Facts?” Mind & Language. doi:10.1111/mila.12336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watzl, S. 2017. Structuring Mind. The Nature of Attention and how it Shapes Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, F., S. Carey, and N. Quint. 2004. “The Emergence of Kind-Based Object Individuation in Infancy.” Cognitive Psychology 49 (2): 155–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., and M. Singh. 2002. “Early Computation of Part Structure: Evidence from Visual Search.” Perception and Psychophysics 64 (7): 1039–1054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeari, M., and M. Goldsmith. 2010. “Is Object-Based Attention Mandatory? Strategic Control Over Mode of Attention.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 36 (3): 565–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, K., H. Luo, T. Zhou, Y. Zhou, and L. Chen. 2010. “Topological Change Disturbs Object Continuity in Attentive Tracking.” PNAS 107 (50): 21920–21924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar