From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.15.2124)

Upon some quick reflection I thought it might be a good idea to explain why I think psychophysiology might be an appropriate avenue for PCT research.

I would like everyone to keep in mind that most of this research is based on cause --> effect relationships that indicate very short distances in both time and space. It does not mean they are ‘wrong’. It means they are looking at a different picture then you are.

I believe the trick is to look at this research and try to put the puzzle together from your perspective. That is, put your PCT glasses on and see what aspects of the control process they are talking about. I am personally not interested at this level of detail, although I will keep up with the literature to ensure my ideas are consistent with it.

What I found useful was not only the chapter but the references to the chapter. When reading a new book I generally look at three things. First is the table of contents to see broadly what is being talked about. Second, I go to the index and look up the areas I am interested in and see if they are addressed, and third I look at the bibliography to see where s/he got their ideas from so I have some idea of the perspective they might have in writing the book.

The bib for this chapter looks excellent and again anyone who is serious about the advancement of our understanding of perceptual control would be wise to look into it. At least that is my opinion.