Inhibited practiceThe moral Runeson draws actually reminds me of an issue that I've not yet broached. So, what, according to Ecological Psychologists (EPs), is the explanation of the visual deficits of those who have congenital cateracts removed? What do they say about the deficits of the kittens in the Hein and Held experiment? Are they going to say anything more than something in the body has deteriorated through corrosion? (I know Noë's line on this and I don't think it works, but is there a "standard" EP line?)
If a person is not allowed to use his planimeter for a number of years, he may be unable to use it afterwards. Either the planimeter has deteriorated through corrosion or the user has grown too old to relearn its use.
Moral. The problems encountered by blind people who get their vision back through operation could be of the above kind. The same might be true for the practical blindness exhibited by kittens who have been moved around passively for a long time. (Runeson, 1977, p. 177).
Most importantly, what do they say about the deficits in experiments with monocular lid suture? These look to be cases in which the neurons of the visual system develop abnormally. But, EPs seem not to want to talk about the brain. I have not seen an outright prohibition or denunciation of research on the brain, but then again EPs don't seem to talk much about it anyway. Gibson, 1979, has no index entry for "brain".
Chemero apparently thinks Gibson rejects use of information about the brain, but Gary has rejected that rejection.