Philosophical Studies

, Volume 153, Issue 1, pp 143–160 | Cite as

Lessons from beyond vision (sounds and audition)

  • Casey O’Callaghan


Recent work on non-visual modalities aims to translate, extend, revise, or unify claims about perception beyond vision. This paper presents central lessons drawn from attention to hearing, sounds, and multimodality. It focuses on auditory awareness and its objects, and it advances more general lessons for perceptual theorizing that emerge from thinking about sounds and audition. The paper argues that sounds and audition no better support the privacy of perception’s objects than does vision; that perceptual objects are more diverse than an exclusively visual perspective suggests; and that multimodality is rampant. In doing so, it presents an account according to which audition affords awareness as of not just sounds, but also environmental happenings beyond sounds.


Non-visual perception Hearing Sound Objects of perception 



Many thanks to Clare Batty, Tim Bayne, Austen Clark, Brian Keeley, Amy Kind, Fiona Macpherson, Mark Okrent, and audience members at the non-visual perception symposium at the 2010 Pacific APA in San Francisco.


  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1965). The intentionality of sensation: A grammatical feature. In R. J. Butler (Ed.), Analytical philosophy (second series). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M. (2004). In defense of the cognitivist theory of perception. The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 12, 19–26.Google Scholar
  3. Batty, C. (2010). Scents and sensibilia. American Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 103–118.Google Scholar
  4. Berkeley, G. (1713/1975). Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. In: M. R. Ayers (Ed.), Philosophical works, including the works on vision. Dent, London.Google Scholar
  5. Bermúdez, J. L. (2000). Naturalized sense data. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61(2), 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertelson, P. (1999). Ventriloquism: A case of cross-modal perceptual grouping. In G. Aschersleben & T. Bachmann, J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 347–362). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blauert, J. (1997). Spatial hearing: The psychophysics of human sound localization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391, 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, B. (2007). Perception and its objects. Philosophical Studies, 132, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, A., & Hilbert, D. (2008). Basic sensible qualities and the structure of appearance. Philosophical Issues, 18, 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casati, R., & Dokic, J. (1994). La Philosopie du Son. Nîmes: Chambon.Google Scholar
  12. Casati, R., & Dokic, J. (2009). Some varieties of spatial hearing. In M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds and perception: New philosophical essays (Chap. 5, pp. 97–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, A. (2000). A theory of sentience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, A. (2010). Cross-modal cuing and selective attention. In F. Macpherson (Ed.), The senses: Classical and contemporary philosophical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. de Vignemont, F. (forthcoming). A mosquito bite against the enactive approach to bodily experiences. Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, G (1980). Things without the mind—a commentary upon chapter two of Strawson’s Individuals. In Z. van Straaten (Ed.), Philosophical subjects: Essays presented to P. F. Strawson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fulkerson, M. (forthcoming). The unity of haptic touch. Philosophical Psychology.Google Scholar
  18. Hellie, B. (2006). Beyond phenomenal naiveté. Philosophers’ Imprint, 6(2), 1–24,
  19. Jackson, F. (1977). Perception: A representative theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kubovy, M., & Van Valkenburg, D. (2001). Auditory and visual objects. Cognition, 80, 97–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kulvicki, J. (2008). The nature of noise. Philosophers’ Imprint, 8(11), 1–16.
  22. Lycan, W. (2000). The slighting of smell. In N. Bhushan & S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of minds and molecules: New philosophical perspectives on chemistry (pp. 273–289). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Maclachlan, D. L. C. (1989). Philosophy of perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Malpas, R. M. P. (1965). The location of sound. In R. J. Butler (Ed.), Analytical philosophy (second series, pp. 131–144). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Martin, M. (1992). Sight and touch. In T. Crane (Ed.), The contents of experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Matthen, M. (2005). Seeing, doing, and knowing: A philosophical theory of sense perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthen, M. (2010). On the diversity of auditory objects. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(1), 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nudds, M. (2001). Experiencing the production of sounds. European Journal of Philosophy, 9, 210–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nudds, M. (2010). What are auditory objects? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nudds, M., & O’Callaghan, C. (Eds.). (2009). Sounds and perception: New philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. O’Callaghan, C. (2007). Sounds: A philosophical theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. O’Callaghan, C. (2010). Perceiving the locations of sounds. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(1), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Shaughnessy, B. (2000). Consciousness and the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. O’Shaughnessy, B. (2009). The location of a perceived sound. In M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds and perception: New philosophical essays (Chap. 6, pp. 111–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pasnau, R. (1999). What is sound? Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perkins, M. (1983). Sensing the world. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  39. Scholl, B. J. (2001). Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition, 80, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sekuler, R., Sekuler, A. B., & Lau, R. (1997). Sound alters visual motion perception. Nature, 385, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2002). Visual illusion induced by sound. Cognitive Brain Research, 14, 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shoemaker, S. (1990). Qualities and qualia: What’s in the mind. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50, 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siegel, S. (2008). The contents of perception. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
  44. Smith, A. D. (2002). The problem of perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, B. C. (Ed.). (2007). Questions of taste: The philosophy of wine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sturgeon, S. (2000). Matters of mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Tye, M. (2007). The problem of common sensibles. Erkenntnis, 66, 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valberg, J. J. (1992). The puzzle of experience. In T. Crane (Ed.), The contents of experience (pp. 18–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Vatakis, A., & Spence, C. (2007). Crossmodal binding: Evaluating the “unity assumption” using audiovisual speech stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(5), 744–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 638–667.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations