Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phenomenal Causality II: Integration and Implication

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Axiomathes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The empirical literature on phenomenal causality (the notion that causality can be perceived) is reviewed. Different potential types of phenomenal causality and variables that influence phenomenal causality were considered in Part I (Hubbard 2012b) of this two-part series. In Part II, broader questions regarding properties of phenomenal causality and connections of phenomenal causality to other perceptual or cognitive phenomena (different types of phenomenal causality, effects of spatial and temporal variance, phenomenal causality in infancy, effects of object properties, naïve physics, spatial localization, other illusions, amodal completion, Gestalt principles of perceptual grouping, effects of context, differences between physical and social causality, effects of learning and experience, individual differences, effects of predictability, asymmetry in phenomenal causality, differences between perceived causality and perceived force, phenomenal causality in nonhuman animals) are considered. Potential mechanisms of phenomenal causality (inference from contiguity, a priori understanding, ampliation, perceptual learning, stimulus activity, beliefs regarding kinematics, haptic experience, beliefs regarding impetus, postdiction, innateness, modularity, specific neural structures) are also considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Just as having adult experimental participants choose a specific category on a rating scale does not conclusively establish phenomenal causality occurs; by analogy, observing an infant look in a specific direction in preferential looking task or dishabituate to a stimulus that differs in causal information does not conclusively establish phenomenal causality occurs. Preferential looking or dishabituation often do not discriminate between an infant’s expectations and an infant’s potential phenomenal causality.

  2. Such a suggestion is consistent with recent appeals for a greater consideration of the content of subjective experience within cognitive theories (e.g., Gallager and Sørensen 2006; Hubbard 1996; Overgaard et al. 2008; Varela 1996).

  3. Choi and Scholl (2006b) reported representational momentum of a launched target did not differ from representational momentum of a moving object in a passing display. However, Choi and Scholl did not compare representational momentum in a passing display with representational momentum for targets in other nonlaunching conditions, and it is possible representational momentum in a passing display might have been decreased for other reasons other than the presence of two objects and a single motion (e.g., representational friction from the moving object passing over the stationary object, a landmark attraction effect of the moving object backward to the passed object, etc.).

  4. Young et al. (2005) referred to correlations across time (i.e., contact of a launcher and target would predict the subsequent onset of target motion). It is possible, though, that correlations at a single moment of time might similarly influence phenomenal causality. For example, in the mechanism-consistent condition in White (2005), motions of targets that were not contacted by the target were correlated with motion of the target that was contacted by the target, and participants were more likely to rate motions of the uncontacted targets as caused by the launcher. The increased correlation in the mechanism-consistent condition might have increased the likelihood of a perceived causal relationship between motion of the contacted target and motions of the uncontacted targets (i.e., motion of the contacted target was caused by the launcher, and so motion of the uncontacted targets must also have been caused by the launcher).

  5. Experiments can be created in which parameters based on Humean cues are varied, and phenomenal causality occurs in only a small subset of possible parameter configurations (e.g., impression of launching only occurs if target velocity is equal to or lower than launcher velocity, the target starts moving within 100 ms after contact, and the direction of target motion is approximately the same as the direction of launcher motion; Michotte 1946/1963). Findings that different types of phenomenal causality are limited to small subsets of different parameter spaces has been used to argue causality can be perceived.

  6. If one object is moving and a second object is stationary, then it could be argued that the moving object is (at least initially) more salient than is the stationary object. Given that causality is more likely to be attributed to a salient stimulus than to a nonsalient stimulus (Taylor and Fiske 1975), it is possible that the launcher in a typical launching effect stimulus is perceived as more causal because initial movement of the launcher makes the launcher appear more salient than the initially stationary target. Such a notion is consistent with findings that (a) the launching effect is stronger in participants who fixate the launcher during its motion or fixate the location of the contact between the launcher and target (Hindmarch 1973), and (b) participants are less likely to perceive a partial overlap display as causal if less attention was allocated to that stimulus (i.e., if participants fixate a location further away from the partial overlap stimulus, Choi and Scholl 2004). However, in White (2007, 2009a) visual salience was presumably the same whether force or resistance was judged, and the launcher was perceived as causal even if the target was in motion prior to contact with the launcher and the launcher was in motion after contact with the target.

  7. Although beyond the scope of this review, it should be noted that use of an impetus heuristic in perception of collisions could be adaptive, as it would permit a sufficiently accurate prediction of the behavior of a launched target (e.g., a pushed object would move a short distance and then stop) with less cognitive effort than would a prediction based on an accurate understanding of all the relevant physical factors (for discussion, see Hubbard 2004, 2012a). Given the importance of subjective consequences of physical principles rather than of objective physical principles in mental representation (Hubbard 1999, 2005, 2006), it should also be noted that an impetus heuristic is consistent with recent emphases on the embodied nature of perception and cognition (e.g., Gibbs 2005; Wilson 2002) and with previous suggestions that belief in impetus might contribute to representational momentum (e.g., Kozhevnikov and Hegarty 2001).

References

  • Alba JW, Hasher L (1983) Is memory schematic? Psychol Bull 93:203–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert MK (2007) Mechanisms of modal and amodal interpolation. Psychol Rev 114:455–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnheim R (1974) Art and visual perception: a psychology of the creative eye (the new version). University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnheim R (1988) Visual dynamics. Sci Am 76:585–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartley SH, Wilkinson FR (1953) Some factors in the production of gamma movement. J Psychol 36:201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassili JN (1976) Temporal and spatial contingencies in the perception of social events. J Pers Soc Psychol 33:680–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley NA (1968) The extent of individual differences in the perception of causality. Can J Psychol 22:399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belanger ND, Desrochers S (2001) Can 6-month old infants process causality in different types of causal events? Br J Dev Psychol 19:11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry DS, Springer K (1993) Structure, motion, and preschoolers’ perceptions of social causality. Ecol Psychol 5:273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry DS, Misovich SJ, Kean KJ, Baron RM (1992) Effects of disruption of structure and motion on perceptions of social causality. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 18:237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore SJ, Fonlupt P, Pachot-Clouard M, Darmon C, Boyer P, Meltzoff AN, Segebarth C, Decety J (2001) How the brain perceives causality: an event-related fMRI study. NeuroReport 12:3741–3746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore SJ, Boyer P, Pachot-Clouard M, Meltzoff A, Segebarth C, Decety J (2003) The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain. Cereb Cortex 13:837–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler DM, Thommen E (2000) Attribution of mechanical and social causality to animated displays by children with autism. Autism 4:147–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle DG (1960) A contribution to the study of phenomenal causation. Quart J Exp Psychol 12:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown HV, Miles TR (1969) Prior stimulation and the perception of causality. Quart J Exp Psychol 21:134–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehner MJ, Humphreys GR (2010) Causal contraction: spatial binding in the perception of collision events. Psychol Sci 21:44–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock M, Gelman R, Baillargeon R (1982) The development of causal reasoning. In: Friedman WJ (ed) The developmental psychology of time. Academic Press, New York, pp 209–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke L (1952) On the tunnel effect. Quart J Exp Psychol 4:121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelli F, Happe F, Frith U, Frith C (2000) Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. NeuroImage 12:314–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi H, Scholl BJ (2004) Effects of grouping and attention on the perception of causality. Percept Psychophys 66:926–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi H, Scholl BJ (2006a) Perceiving causality after the fact: postdiction in the temporal dynamics of causal perception. Perception 35:385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi H, Scholl BJ (2006b) Measuring causal perception: connections to representational momentum? Acta Psychol 123:91–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchino JB, Aslin RN, Rakison DH (2011) Correspondences between what infants see and know about causal and self-propelled motion. Cognition 118:171–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LB, Amsel G (1998) Precursors to infants’ perception of the causality of a simple event. Infant Behav Dev 21:713–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LB, Oakes LM (1993) How infants perceive a simple causal event. Dev Psychol 29:421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congiu S, Schlottmann A, Ray E (2010) Unimpaired perception of social and physical causality, but impaired perception of animacy in high functioning children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 40:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corballis PM (2003) Visuospatial processing and the right-hemisphere interpreter. Brain Cogn 53:171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corballis PM, Fendrich R, Shapley RM, Gazzaniga MS (1999) Illusory contour perception and amodal boundary completion: evidence of a dissociation following callosotomy. J Cogn Neurosci 11:459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren S, Girgus JS (1980) Principles of perceptual organization and spatial distortion: the Gestalt illusions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 6:404–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De sa Teixeira NA, de Oliveira AM, Viegas R (2008) Functional approach to the integration of kinematic and dynamic variables in causal perception: is there a link between phenomenology and behavioral responses? Jpn Psychol Res 50:232–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De sa Teixeira NA, de Oliveira AM, Amorim M-A (2010) Combined effects of mass and velocity on forward displacement and phenomenological ratings: a functional measurement approach to the momentum metaphor. Psicologica 31:659–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett DC (1987) The intentional stance. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett DC (1997) True believers: the intentional strategy and why it works. In: Haugeland J (ed) Mind design II. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 57–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers S (1999) Infants’ processing of causal and noncausal events at 3.5 months of age. J Genet Psychol 160:294–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (1994) Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception 23:253–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagleman DM, Sejnowski TJ (2000) Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness. Science 287:2036–2038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagleman DM, Sejnowski TJ (2003) The line-motion illusion can be reversed by motion signals after the line disappears. Perception 32:963–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falmier O, Young ME (2008) The impact of object animacy on the appraisal of causality. Am J Psychol 121:473–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finke RA, Freyd JJ, Shyi GCW (1986) Implied velocity and acceleration induce transformations of visual memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 115:175–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flombaum JI, Scholl BJ (2006) A temporal same-object advantage in the tunnel effect: facilitated change detection for persisting object. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:840–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor JA (1983) The modularity of mind. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonlupt P (2003) Perception and judgment of physical causality involve different brain structures. Cogn Brain Res 17:248–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fugelsang JA, Roser ME, Corballis PM, Gazzaniga MS, Dunbar KN (2005) Brain mechanisms underlying perceptual causality. Cogn Brain Res 24:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallager S, Sørensen JB (2006) Experimenting with phenomenology. Conscious Cogn 15:119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao T, Newman GE, Scholl BJ (2009) The psychophysics of chasing: a case study in the perception of animacy. Cogn Psychol 59:154–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao T, McCarthy G, Scholl BJ (2010) The wolfpack effect: perception of animacy irresistibly influences interactive behavior. Psychol Sci 21:1845–1853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman R, Durgin F, Kaufman L (1995) Distinguishing animates and inanimates: not by motion alone. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ (eds) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 150–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbino W, Salmaso D (1987) The effect of amodal completion on visual matching. Acta Psychol 65:25–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs RW Jr (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guski R, Troje N (2003) Audiovisual phenomenal causality. Percept Psychophys 65:789–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han S, Mao L, Qin J, Friederici AD, Ge J (2011) Functional roles and cultural modulations of the medial prefrontal and parietal activity associated with causal attribution. Neuropsychologia 49:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrower MR (1929) Some experiments on the nature of gamma movement. Psychologische Forschung 13:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Exp Psychol 57:243–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle M (1984) Isomorphism: setting the record straight. Psychol Res Psychol Forsch 46:317–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarch I (1973) Eye movements and the perception of phenomenal causality. Psychologica Belgica 13:17–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Houssiadas L (1964) Effects of ‘set’ and intellectual level on the perception of causality. Acta Psychol 22:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (1996) The importance of a consideration of qualia to imagery and cognition. Conscious Cogn 5:327–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (1999) How consequences of physical principles influence mental representation: the environmental invariants hypothesis. In: Killeen PR, Uttal WR (eds) Fechner Day 99: The end of 20th century psychophysics. Proceedings of the 15th annual meeting of the international society for psychophysics. The International Society for Psychophysics, Tempe, pp 274–279

  • Hubbard TL (2004) The perception of causality: Insights from Michotte’s launching effect, naive impetus theory, and representational momentum. In: Oliveira AM, Teixeira MP, Borges GF, Ferro MJ (eds) Fechner Day 2004. The International Society for Psychophysics, Coimbra, pp 116–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (2005) Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: a review of the findings. Psychon Bull Rev 12:822–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (2006) Bridging the gap: possible roles and contributions of representational momentum. Psicologica 27:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (2011) Extending pragnanz: Dynamic aspects of mental representation and Gestalt principles. In: Albertazzi L, van Tonder G, Vishwanath D (eds) Perception beyond inference: the information content of visual processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 75–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL (2012a) Launching, entraining, and representational momentum: Evidence consistent with an impetus heuristic in the perception of causality. Axiomathes. doi:10.1007/s10516-012-9186-z

  • Hubbard TL (2012b) Phenomenal causality I: varieties and variables. Axiomathes. doi:10.1007/s10516-012-9198-8

  • Hubbard TL (2012c) Visual perception of force: comment on White (2012). Psychol Bull 138:616–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL, Favretto A (2003) Naive impetus and Michotte’s “Tool Effect:” Evidence from representational momentum. Psychol Res Psychol Forsch 67:134–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE (2002) A possible role of naive impetus in Michotte’s “Launching Effect:” Evidence from representational momentum. Vis Cogn 9:153–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE (2012) Ratings of causality and force in launching and shattering. Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the psychonomic society, Minneapolis

  • Hubbard TL, Blessum JA, Ruppel SE (2001) Representational momentum and Michotte’s (1946/1963) “Launching Effect” paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 27:294–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard TL, Ruppel SE, Courtney JR (2005) The force of appearance: gamma movement, naive impetus, and representational momentum. Psicologica 26:209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume D (1960) A treatise of human nature. Clarendon, Oxford. (Original work published 1740)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume D (1977) An enquiry concerning human understanding. Hackett, Indianapolis. (Original work published 1748)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson G (1964) Measurement of eye movements during a Michotte launching event. Scand J Psychol 5:153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys 14:201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan JS, Hunsinger M (2008) Learned patterns of action-effect anticipation contribute to the spatial displacement of continuously moving stimuli. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan JS, Knoblich G (2004) Spatial perception and control. Psychon Bull Rev 11:54–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser MK, Proffitt DR, Whelan SM, Hecht H (1992) The influence of animation on dynamical judgments. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:669–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanizsa G (1979) Organization in vision: essays on Gestalt psychology. Praeger, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanizsa G, Vicario G (1968) The perception of intentional reaction. In: Kanizsa G, Vicario G (eds) Experimental research on perception. University of Trieste, Treiste, pp 71–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1950) Prolegomena to any future metaphysics (trans: Beck LW). Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis. (Original work published 1783)

  • Kant I (1965) Critique of pure reason (trans: Smith NK). St. Martin’s Press, New York. (Original work published 1787)

  • Kawachi Y, Gyoba J (2006) A new response-time measure of object persistence in the tunnel effect. Acta Psychol 123:73–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiritani Y (1999) Perceptual causality in the amodal completion of kinetic structures. Psychol Res Psychol Forsch 62:255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotovsky L, Baillargeon R (1998) The development of calibration-based reasoning about collision events in young infants. Cognition 67:311–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotovsky L, Baillargeon R (2000) Reasoning about collisions involving inert objects in 7.5-month-old infants. Dev Sci 3:344–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov M, Hegarty M (2001) Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychon Bull Rev 8:439–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1982) The perception of causality in infants. Perception 11:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1984) Spatiotemporal continuity and the perception of causality in infants. Perception 13:287–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1986) Getting development off the ground: modularity and the infant’s perception of causality. In: van Gest P (ed) Theory building in development. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 405–437

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1988) The necessity of illusion: Perception and thought in infancy. In: Weiskrantz L (ed) Thought without language. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1994) ToMM, ToBy, and agency: core architecture and domain specificity. In: Hirschfield L, Gelman S (eds) Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM (1995) A theory of agency. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ (eds) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 121–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie AM, Keeble S (1987) Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition 25:265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyton M (1989) Inferring causal history from shape. Cogn Sci 13:357–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyton M (1992) Symmetry, causality, mind. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Malle BF (2006) How the mind explains behavior: folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey M (1983) Naive theories of motion. In: Gentner D, Stevens AL (eds) Mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 299–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Michotte A (1963). The perception of causality (trans: Miles T, Miles E). Basic Books, New York. (Original work published 1946)

  • Michotte A, Thinès G (1991) Perceived causality. In: Thinès G, Costall A, Butterworth G (eds) Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 66–87 (Original work published 1963)

    Google Scholar 

  • Michotte A, Thinès G, Crabbé G (1964) Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives [Amodal completions of perceptual structures]. Publications Universitaires, Studia Psychologica, Louvain

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris MW, Peng K (1994) Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:949–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris MW, Nisbett RE, Peng K (1995) Causal attribution across domains and cultures. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack AJ (eds) Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 577–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris JP, Pelphrey KA, McCarthy G (2008) Perceived causality influences brain activity evoked by biological motion. Soc Neurosci 3:16–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura K (1996) The effect of manual operation of a moving target on young children’s perception of causality. Jpn J Dev Psychol 7:119–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura K (2006) The perception of causality as a kinetic property by young children. Jpn J Psychon Sci 25:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Natsoulas T (1961) Principles of momentum and kinetic energy in the perception of causality. Am J Psychol 74:394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman GE, Choi H, Wynn K, Scholl BJ (2008) The origins of causal perception: evidence from postdictive processing in infancy. Cogn Psychol 57:262–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell S, Dunbar RIM (2005) The perception of causality in chimpanzees (Pan spp.). Anim Cogn 8:60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes LM (1994) Development of infants’ use of continuity cues in their perception of causality. Dev Psychol 30:869–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes LM, Cohen LB (1990) Infant perception of a causal event. Cogn Dev 5:193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overgaard M, Gallagher S, Ramsøy TZ (2008) An integration of first-person methodologies in cognitive science. J Conscious Stud 15:100–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer S, Rock I (1994) Rethinking perceptual organization: the role of uniform connectedness. Psychon Bull Rev 1:29–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlova M, Guerreschi M, Lutzenberger W, Krägeloh-Mann I (2010) Social interaction revealed by motion: dynamics of neuromagnetic gamma activity. Cereb Cortex 20:2361–2367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng K, Knowles ED (2003) Culture, education, and the attribution of physical causality. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29:1272–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollick FE, Kay JW, Heim K, Stringer R (2005) Gender recognition from point-light walkers. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:1247–1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powesland PF (1959) The effect of practice upon the perception of causality. Can J Psychol 13:155–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakison DH (2005) A secret agent? How infants learn about the identity of objects in a causal scene. J Exp Child Psychol 91:271–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakison DH, Krogh L (2012) Does causal action facilitate causal perception in infants younger than 6 months of age? Dev Sci 15:43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakison DH, Poulin-Dubois D (2001) Development origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychol Bull 127:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschenberger R, Peterson MA, Mosca F, Bruno N (2004) Amodal completion in visual search. Preemption or context effects? Psychol Sci 15:351–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimé B, Boulanger B, Laubin P, Richir M, Stroobants K (1985) The perception of interpersonal emotions originated by patterns of movement. Motiv Emot 9:241–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochat P, Morgan R, Carpenter M (1997) Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cogn Dev 12:537–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger HL (1996) Memory illusions. J Mem Lang 35:76–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roser ME, Fugelsang JA, Dunbar KN, Corballis PM, Gazzaniga MS (2005) Dissociating processes supporting causal perception and causal inference in the brain. Neuropsychology 19:591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runeson S, Frykholm G (1981) Visual perception of lifted weight. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7:733–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe R, Carey S (2006) The perception of causality in infancy. Acta Psychol 123:144–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A (1999) Seeing it happen and knowing how it works: how children understand the relationship between perceptual causality and underlying mechanism. Dev Psychol 35:303–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A (2000) Is perception of causality modular? Trends Cogn Sci 4:441–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Anderson NH (1993) An information integration approach to phenomenal causality. Mem Cogn 21:785–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Ray E (2010) Goal attribution to schematic animals: do 6-month-olds perceive biological motion as animate? Dev Sci 13:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Shanks DR (1992) Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Quart J Exp Psychol 44A:321–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Surian L (1999) Do 9-month-olds perceive causation-at-a-distance? Perception 28:1105–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Allen D, Linderoth C, Hesketh S (2002) Perceptual causality in children. Child Dev 73:1656–1677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Ray ED, Mitchell A, Demetriou N (2006) Perceived social and physical causality in animated motion: spontaneous reports and ratings. Acta Psychol 123:112–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Surian L, Ray ED (2009) Causal perception of action-and-reaction sequences in 8- to 10-month-olds. J Exp Child Psychol 103:87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann A, Ray ED, Surian L (2012) Emerging perception of causality in action-and-reaction sequences from 4 to 6 months of age: is it domain-specific? J Exp Child Psychol 112:208–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl BJ, Nakayama K (2002) Causal capture: contextual effects on the perception of collision events. Psychol Sci 13:493–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl BJ, Nakayama K (2004) Illusory causal crescents: misperceived spatial relations due to perceived causality. Perception 33:455–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl BJ, Tremoulet PD (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn Sci 4:299–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelke ES, Phillips A, Woodward AL (1995) Infants’ knowledge of object motion and human action. In: Sperber D, Premack D, Premack A (eds) Causal cognition; a multidisciplinary debate. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 44–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer K, Meier JA, Berry DS (1996) Nonverbal bases of social perception: developmental change in sensitivity to patterns of motion that reveal interpersonal events. J Nonverbal Behav 20:199–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA (2011) Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist 17:37–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straube B, Wolk D, Chatterjee A (2011) The role of the right parietal lobe in the perception of causality: a tDCS study. Exp Brain Res 215:315–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talmy L (1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cogn Sci 12:49–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SE, Fiske ST (1975) Point-of-view and perceptions of causality. J Pers Soc Psychol 32:439–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thommen E, Dumas A, Erskine J, Reymond J (1998) Perception and conceptualization of intentionality in children. Br J Dev Psychol 16:255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremoulet PD, Feldman J (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception 29:943–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschacher W, Kupper Z (2006) Perception of causality in schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Schizophr Bull 32:S106–S112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela FJ (1996) Neurophenomenology: a methodological remedy for the hard problem. J Consciousness Stud 3:330–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagemans J, van Lier R, Scholl BJ (2006) Introduction to Michotte’s heritage in perception and cognition research. Acta Psychol 123:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weir S (1978) The perception of motion: Michotte revisited. Perception 7:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (1990) Ideas about causation in philosophy and psychology. Psychol Bull 108:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (1999) Toward a causal realist account of causal understanding. Am J Psychol 112:605–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2005) Visual causal impression in the perception of several moving objects. Vis Cogn 12:395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2006a) The causal asymmetry. Psychol Rev 113:132–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2006b) The role of activity in visual impressions of causality. Acta Psychol 123:166–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2007) Impressions of force in visual perception of collision events: a test of the causal asymmetry hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev 14:647–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2009a) Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psychol Rev 116:580–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2009b) Property transmission: an explanatory account of the role of similarity information in causal inference. Psychol Bull 135:774–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2011a) Judgments about forces in described interaction between objects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 37:979–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2011b) Visual impression of forces between objects: entraining, enforced disintegration, and shattering. Vis Cogn 19:635–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2011c) Visual impressions of force exerted by one object on another when the objects do not come into contact. Vis Cogn 19:340–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2012a) The experience of force: the role of haptic experience of forces in visual perception of object motion and interactions, mental simulation, and motion-related judgments. Psychol Bull 138:589–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA (2012b) Perceptual impressions and mental simulations of force: reply to Hubbard (2012). Psychol Bull 138:624–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PA, Milne A (1997) Phenomenal causality: impressions of pulling in the visual perception of objects in motion. Am J Psychol 110:573–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson M (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 9:625–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff P (2007) Representing causation. J Exp Psychol Gen 136:82–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff P (2008) Dynamics and the perception of causal events. In: Shipley T, Zacks J (eds) Understanding events: how humans see, represent, and act on events. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 555–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Yela M (1952) Phenomenal causation at a distance. Quart J Exp Psychol 4:139–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME (1995) On the origin of personal causal theories. Psychon Bull Rev 2:83–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Falmier O (2008) Launching at a distance: the effect of spatial markers. Quart J Exp Psychol 61:1356–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Sutherland S (2009) The spatiotemporal distinctiveness of direct causation. Psychon Bull Rev 16:729–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Rogers ET, Beckmann JS (2005) Causal impression: predicting when, not just whether. Mem Cogn 33:320–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Beckmann JS, Wasserman EA (2006) Pigeons’ discrimination of Michotte’s launching effect. J Exp Anal Behav 86:223–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou J, Huang X, Jin X, Liang J, Shui R, Shen M (in press) Perceived causalities of physical events are influenced by social cues. J Exp Psychol Hum Perc Perform

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA

    Timothy L. Hubbard

Authors
  1. Timothy L. Hubbard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy L. Hubbard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hubbard, T.L. Phenomenal Causality II: Integration and Implication. Axiomathes 23, 485–524 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9200-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9200-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation