2. Action-perception coupling (AP coupling), in loose terms, refers to how our action affordances are closely linked and prepared based on what we perceive. We see someone kick a ball, and by watching their legs' rotation and muscle stiffness we infer the strength of the impact and we predict how fast the ball will move (Perception) while our muscles are prepared for a specific setup, a setup capable of supporting us if we decided to catch that moving ball (Action) -this happens regardless of whether we will chase the ball or not, hence the term "coupling". In other words, these two domains are coupled so it is not our choice to prepare our muscles for a hypothetical action or not, it happens regardless.

TLDR; - AP coupling means we are constantly prepared for goal-oriented actions (consciously or unconsciously) based on our perception.

Perceiving a moving ball however, seeing where it was and where it might end is a mix of visual perception (speed and direction of activation of visual fields -ganglions across the retina) that help trace the trajectory, and prediction based on prior knowledge (i.e. knowledge of how a soccer ball behaves in the physical world when kicked).

So, that which is common between how we perceive a moving ball and AP coupling, is sensorimotor prediction (cognitive function/component).

1. A moment is arbitrary I suspect, depends on the context and your purpose in illustrating it. You can look at it from a biological standpoint, where there is no time, but a constant flow of information, which by what we know is produced as fast as every 4 milliseconds. Whether the information of 4 msecs is linked to some sort of conscious, meaningful experience is yet to be demonstrated. You can also look at it from the standpoint of Time and how we as humans perceive time and how we give meaning to these "building blocks" of time. You have plenty of variables here to explore, from the behaviour of the internal clock to an evershifting time perception depending on mood, sensory perception, and cognitive vigilance (the more vigilant the attention, the slower time seems to pass, so the smaller time segments/units will feel like). I think reading into Tulving (major influence in the field of memory and time perception research) might help you with this question as you need to establish a common perception of time amongst humans, if you are to proceed with exploring what the smallest segment of perceivable time is defined as (and then link it with whether we feel this as a "moment"). Come to think about your question, it starts to feel much more philosophical than one that can be easily answered with hard science. Good luck!

Let's be short and really demarcate the subject:

1. What are the perception processes iwhich record the actual moment able to distinguish within that so very brief period of time? Isn't it so that within the auditory perception we are solely capable of comparing all past actual moments within the sentence? Like when we catch a ball? Is the perception of the moment not worthless if we don't compare it to the adjacent perceptual images?

2. Did you consider

a- Chapter The complete and final clarification of catching - All motor...

b - Research Proposal The complete and final clarification of catching - All motor...

c - (PDF) The behavioural perception processes within all traffic situations -The visual perception of an approaching car (researchgate.net)

3. Interesting philosphical thoughts. Did you also consider that we perceive a still standing cup in the exact same active way as a moving cup.

a- Experiment Findings How do we visually perceive the standstill of a coffee cup -...

b - Experiment Findings The visual perception organ is ecologically a comparing organ

I'd offer the possibility that perception and action shape each other at multiple time scales. This point is testable in different ways, including hierarchical linear modeling as well as fractal and multifractal modeling. There are limits due to the scale dependencies of physiology and of the contextual constraints, but so far, there is no need for a limit on the time scales possibly implicated. Within whatever bounds you could find, there is the potential for continuous variation of time scale, as well as the evidence that multiple time scales of perceptual-motor coordiantion interact, either potential implications again at several time scales-originally involved or not.

Thanks for your thoughts. The explanatory model of all motoric movement actions expresses exactly that perception (perceptual images) is not more than past and future representations of the position of an action object.

Do you agree that the perception of the first zeros at a malfunctioning alarm clock have nothing to do with the perception of the later appearing zeros at that same clock?

Experiment Findings How do we visually perceive the standstill of a coffee cup -...

Perception is direct (Gibson)!? Isn't it also linear and isn't it also perpetual? We know that the coffee cup is standing in front of us but ecologically that is not the most important phenomenon. Our perception processes want to know perpetually whether it moves or not. (We never know when the lion will attack us or any UMO of that matter).

That's a really interesting discussion.

I don't think the right way to think about it is referring to time scales; instead, a much more appropriate way to discuss it is by considering EVENTS. According to Gibson (1979), there are three types of events: (1) change in the surface layout, (2) change in the color and texture, and (3) change in the existence of surfaces. Certainly, perceiving an EVENT is different from perceiving a static object, as the former requires some change while the latter does not.

Indeed, we have a limited capacity to hold information, but as some event is happening, we perceive it throughout the event. Certainly, there is a philosophical debate on whether the past, present or future really matters/exists. But from a functional perspective, the only thing we need to understand is the events. That, in turn, will give rise to specific affordances.

Also, the biggest thing about perception and action as coupled mechanisms is that one depends on the other. As we move we perceive new things, as we perceive new things we might act differently, and so on and forth. I think the example you mentioned is a relatively good one. However, I am not sure about "ADJACENT (!) perceptual images of past (manifest) actual positions." As I mentioned before, the event is happening right now, we simply perceive it as a natural sequence of things...

Best,

Thanks for your reply.

Isn't it a fact that all (future as well as all past) positions of all objects and subjects are connected to each other? Isn't it a fact that from the day you were born till the moment you pass away that all the positions P of your body make (just) one uninterupted chain. Which you can factually regard as the body being part of one (and just one) very long action trajectory shape c.q. being part of one (and just one) time line. Like the alarm clock we don't move while we sleep within but we move in time. Actual movement or zero-movement has an ongoing time-component.

Now if it is a fact that you create one action trajectory shape c.q. one time line segment shape from birth till death then you can see that as a marble run in which you are the marble. Then the actual position in which you (the marble) are now exactly marks the division between all your past and future positions. In which all positions P (x) have factual (adjacent) neighbours P (x-1) and P (x+1).