It involves using the same kinds of structures, in the same part of the brain, but these structures are repurposed to receive in their perceptual input functions perceptual signals of a higher order than the signals that are received by such structures that are not ‘repurposed’ in this way. This is accomplished by reorganization, either by evolution and then developmental or by learning. The perceptions that they control are more ‘abstract’ because they are created from perceptual signals of a higher order.
which create more ‘abstract’ perceptions to be controlled.
For example, Relationship perceptions may be more abstract forms of Configuration perceptions. Tom Bourbon’s demonstration of two cursors and one target did not distinguish whether the subject was controlling relationship perceptions or a configuration perception.
That we can see the alignments of cursors and target as relationships or as configurations suggests that relationship control is a more ‘abstract’ form of configuration control. Henry’s figure showing the changed rate of firing in a nerve bundle as a monkey flexed its arm was taken as an illustration of configuration control, i.e. the configuration of the arm around the elbow. Might it as reasonably be taken as an illustration of the monkey controlling a relationship of proximity of the lower arm and hand to the upper arm? Or if it is understood as a relationship of distance between hand and shoulder along a vector that is simultaneously determined by shoulder angle, isn’t that more appropriate than configuration for describing reaching movements?
The H of HPCT may not be tidily stratified across the board. Nature does whatever works.
As hominids developed into early humans their brains got larger, specifically, the cortex and cerebellum. The cerebellum is 10% of the volume of the brain but holds 50% of the neurons in the brain, and in its purview are configurations, transitions, and relationships, not only physical-motor but also more abstract. I must relocate this topic to the Neuroscience category so as not to digress too much from the topic at hand (and I will post references there), but the relevance here is that because of anatomical parallels and co-location there are likely to be important analogies between the ‘concrete’ perceptions that are easier to subject to test/experiment and the more ‘abstract’ perceptions that are often more difficult for an experimenter to control. This may be very useful for experimental design, and if true is surely relevant to the categorization exercise proposed in this topic.