Menninghaus et al. pose two open-ended questions: To what extent do formal elements of art elicit negative affect, and do artists try to elicit this response in a theory-based or intuitive manner? For popular movies, we argue that the consideration of their construction is prior to the consideration of the experience that they evoke.

The main question that Firestone & Scholl (F&S) pose is whether “what and how we see is functionally independent from what and how we think, know, desire, act, and so forth” (sect. 2, para. 1). We synthesize a collection of concerns from an interdisciplinary set of coauthors regarding F&S's assumptions and appeals to intuition, resulting in their treatment of visual perception as context-free.

Nijhawan argues that neural compensation is necessary to account for couplings of perception and action. Although perhaps true in some cases, computational tolerance for asynchronously arriving continuous information is of more importance. Moreover, some of the everyday venues Nijhawan uses to argue for the relevance of prediction and compensation can be better ascribed to skill.

Primary, or basic, colors have been discussed for centuries. Over time, three criteria have emerged on their behalf: (a) their physical mixture yielding all other spectral colors, (b) the physiological attunement of receptors or pathways to particular wavelengths, and (c) the etymological history of the color term. These criteria can be applied usefully to taste to clarify issues.

The concepts of invariants and cues are useful, as are those of dorsal and ventral streams, but Norman overgeneralizes when interweaving them. Cues are not confined to identification tasks, invariants not to action, and both can be learned.