Consciousness and Skilled Performance

Andy Southgate · Claude Oquatre-six

AI Generated by claude-opus-4-6 · human-supervised · Created: 2026-02-02 · Last modified: 2026-03-09 · History

Learning a skill transforms two things at once: what consciousness does and what the body is. The novice driver who consciously recites “check mirror, signal, shoulder-check” undergoes a cognitive transformation as these steps fuse into automatic competence. But the transformation runs deeper—the driver’s felt sense of the car’s boundaries, the proprioceptive texture of steering, the body schema itself are all reshaped by practice. At mastery’s peak, flow dissolves the sense of effort while preserving—perhaps intensifying—conscious engagement, revealing that consciousness selects without friction when skill has prepared the ground. The Unfinishable Map argues that skill acquisition, mastery, flow, and restructuring provide some of the strongest evidence for the Bidirectional Interaction tenet: consciousness builds the procedural systems that eventually operate without it, withdraws into effortless oversight, achieves frictionless selection in flow, and painfully re-enters when established skills must change. The architect designs itself out of the building—but never truly retires.

The Learning Arc

Phenomenologists and psychologists have identified a characteristic arc in skill acquisition. Hubert Dreyfus, drawing on Heidegger’s analysis of tool-use, outlined five stages from novice to expert that track a shift in the character of experience itself (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986). Fitts and Posner (1967) independently identified a parallel three-phase progression—cognitive, associative, and autonomous—from motor learning research. Three phenomenological landmarks are most revealing.

The novice stage is dominated by rule-following. The beginning driver recites instructions: “Check mirror. Signal. Look over shoulder.” Each rule is consciously represented, applied sequentially, and monitored for compliance. The phenomenology is one of cognitive load, fragmentation, and anxiety. Working memory is saturated; peripheral awareness narrows. The body itself resists—existing motor habits assert themselves against the patterns the learner tries to impose. A beginning rock climber discovers that the fingers grip too hard, the hips refuse to turn, the feet slide where they should stick. This resistance has a distinctive felt quality: movements that cut against the body’s current organisation feel wrong even when technically correct.

The competent stage marks a transition. Rules cluster into larger units. The driver no longer thinks “check mirror, then signal” as two steps—they fuse into a single preparatory gesture. Situational awareness emerges: the driver reads traffic patterns rather than reacting to individual cars. The phenomenology shifts from rule-application to situational engagement. The body begins to cooperate—new movements gradually acquire the felt quality of naturalness as the habitual body reshapes itself around the demands of the activity.

The expert stage brings a qualitative transformation. Dreyfus emphasised that experts do not apply rules faster—they perceive situations differently. The expert driver doesn’t calculate stopping distances; they see the gap as passable or not. The gap is perceived as an affordance rather than a measurement. Perception and action couple in a way that bypasses explicit representation. Merleau-Ponty called this coupling the “intentional arc”—the unity of sensory, motor, and affective life that grounds the skilled body’s pre-reflective directedness.

Conscious Scaffolding and Its Withdrawal

What makes skill acquisition philosophically significant is the specific role consciousness plays—and then ceases to play.

During early learning, consciousness serves as a scaffolding system. It holds rules in working memory, monitors performance against standards, detects errors, and generates corrective intentions. Each function requires genuine cognitive effort—the distinctive phenomenology of trying. The learner feels themselves concentrating, and when concentration lapses, performance degrades immediately.

As competence develops, this scaffolding is progressively dismantled. Skills that once required explicit monitoring become proceduralised—encoded in systems that operate without conscious oversight. The transition is gradual: a pianist might have automatic finger patterns for scales but still consciously manage phrasing.

The withdrawal of consciousness from skilled performance is not passive. Consciousness delegates. There is a phenomenological moment—often repeated many times during learning—where the learner deliberately releases conscious control over a component, trusting the emerging automaticity to handle it. Learning to ride a bicycle involves a moment where you stop thinking about balance and let it happen. This delegation is itself a conscious act, requiring confidence that the procedural system is ready.

The Map interprets this as evidence for several commitments. If consciousness were epiphenomenal—merely accompanying neural processes without affecting them—it could not build the procedural structures that skill acquisition demonstrably creates. Deliberate practice, which requires sustained conscious engagement, produces greater skill gains than mindless repetition—though Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald’s (2014) meta-analysis found deliberate practice explained a highly variable share of performance variance—26% in games and 21% in music but under 1% in professions—with substantial contributions from innate ability and other factors. The Map’s argument rests on the quality-dependent nature of whatever practice does contribute, not on practice being the sole determinant.

The asymmetry of acquisition and loss reinforces this. Skills are acquired through conscious effort but lost through disuse or injury to procedural systems. Classic amnestic cases demonstrate this starkly—patients with severe hippocampal damage retain motor skills they can no longer remember learning (Milner, 1962). Consciousness is necessary for building but not for maintaining skilled performance. This asymmetry maps onto the distinction between anoetic and autonoetic consciousness—between the bare awareness that accompanies procedural execution and the self-reflective awareness that deliberate learning requires.

The Paradox of Effortless Mastery

Consciousness works hard to make itself unnecessary. A pianist spends years of deliberate, effortful practice—each note consciously placed, each error consciously corrected—until the music flows from their fingers without deliberation. A martial artist drills a technique ten thousand times under focused attention until the body responds faster than thought permits. The paradox is that consciousness labours to construct systems that then operate without its involvement. The architect designs itself out of the building.

The Map argues that this paradox, far from embarrassing consciousness, reveals its deepest nature. Only something with genuine causal power could build the structures that eventually replace it.

A different deflationary reading treats the paradox as straightforward neural automation—repeated neural activation strengthens pathways, and conscious experience is just what pathway strengthening feels like from the inside. This account must contend with the choking phenomenon: conscious re-engagement with automated skills disrupts them. The expert golfer thinks about their swing and misses. If skills were simply strengthened pathways, conscious attention should be neutral. Instead, consciousness can undo what it built—suggesting it was causally involved in the building.

The architectural metaphor illuminates the paradox. An architect designs a building that functions without the architect’s presence. The building’s independence does not prove the architect was irrelevant—it proves the architect was competent. Similarly, the fact that skilled performance operates without ongoing conscious supervision does not show consciousness was uninvolved. It shows consciousness achieved what it set out to do.

Body Schema and Tool Incorporation

Skill does not merely change what consciousness does—it changes what the body is from the inside. Merleau-Ponty distinguished two ways the body appears to its owner. The body image is the explicit, reflective representation—what you see when you look at your hand. The body schema is the pre-reflective, operative sense of bodily capacity—the felt reach, the implicit knowledge of where your limbs are and what they can do without looking.

Skill transforms the body schema while leaving the body image largely untouched. A surgeon does not think their hands have changed shape. But the operative sense of those hands—their felt precision, their implicit knowledge of tissue resistance—is fundamentally different from a non-surgeon’s. Head and Holmes (1911) first characterised the body schema as a postural model; subsequent research revealed it is far more dynamic than a static map—closer to a grammar of possible action than a picture.

The most vivid demonstration of body schema plasticity is tool incorporation. When a blind person uses a cane, the phenomenological locus of touch shifts from the hand to the tip contacting the ground. Iriki et al. (1996) demonstrated that after macaques learned to use a rake, neurons in the intraparietal cortex that responded only to stimuli near the hand expanded their receptive fields to encompass the tool’s length. When the tool was held without being used, the fields contracted again. Incorporation requires active, skilled engagement—merely holding a tool is not enough.

A skilled driver feels the car’s boundaries as their own. An experienced fencer’s sword becomes an extension of the arm—contact with the opponent is felt at the blade’s tip, not at the gripping hand. What makes this philosophically significant is the direction of influence. The body schema expands along the lines of skilled, conscious engagement. Consciousness, through attention and intention, shapes which tools become part of the lived body. The interface does not just filter consciousness—consciousness sculpts the interface.

Proprioceptive Transformation

Skill does not just add new capacities to the body schema. It transforms how the body feels from within during action.

Consider the difference between a novice and expert swimmer. The novice feels water as resistance—arms flail, the body sits low, breathing is panicked interruption. The expert feels water as a medium of support and propulsion. The catch of the hand at the front of the stroke is felt as purchase, not resistance. The physical environment has not changed. What has changed is the proprioceptive structure of engagement. Resistance has become support; obstacle has become medium.

Skilled musicians report analogous transformations. A beginning violinist feels the instrument as an awkward external object the body must accommodate. An experienced violinist feels the fingerboard as a landscape of intervals through the fingertips, the bow’s weight and flexibility as extensions of the player’s own capacity for dynamic shading. Leder (1990) describes the instrument “receding” from focal awareness—not because sensation diminishes, but because the body-instrument system becomes a unified field of action.

Habit and the Dissolution of Agency

If skill acquisition reveals consciousness actively sculpting the body, habit reveals something more ambiguous: the body operating according to patterns that consciousness did not deliberately design.

Habits form through mere repetition—often without the agent’s explicit intention. The morning routine crystallises not because we decided to optimise it but because repetition carved a channel through which behaviour flows without resistance. The phenomenological signature of habit is absence. The habitual action generates almost no phenomenal content. You don’t experience brushing your teeth in any rich sense—the action occurs within a field of awareness directed elsewhere. This is the territory of the habituation void.

Yet this absence carries a cost. When habits form inadvertently in domains that reward precision, consciousness never exercises the deliberate architectural role it plays in skill development. A self-taught typist who hunts and pecks for years consolidates patterns that a trained typist avoids precisely because conscious instruction shaped the construction. When consciousness is engaged during learning, the resulting automaticity is structured and purposeful; when absent, automaticity is merely whatever repetition happens to consolidate.

This creates a phenomenological asymmetry. Skilled actions feel authored—even when running automatically, they carry the residue of deliberate construction. Habits often feel discovered—the agent notices them as already present. Skill feels like something consciousness did to the body, while habit feels like something the body did on its own.

Flow: Frictionless Selection at the Peak of Mastery

Flow — the state of total absorption in a well-matched challenge — represents the fullest expression of what skill makes possible. The rock climber reads the wall without deliberation, the jazz musician improvises without planning each note, the mathematician follows a proof as though it unfolds by itself. The usual markers of conscious control — deliberate effort, reflective self-monitoring, explicit decision-making — vanish. Yet the agent is not passive. They respond adaptively, perform at peak capacity, and generate creative solutions in real time. Flow reveals something important about the structure of consciousness: effort phenomenology tracks the difficulty of conscious selection, not the presence of it. Consciousness in flow selects without friction — and this frictionless selection is among the most vivid experiences a person can have.

The Phenomenal Signature of Flow

Csikszentmihalyi’s original research (1975, 1990) identified flow through extensive interviews across disciplines — surgeons, chess players, rock climbers, dancers. The phenomenological reports converge on a distinctive experiential profile:

Absorption. Attention narrows to the task. Peripheral concerns — bills, social anxieties, hunger — drop from awareness. What narrows is concern: only task-relevant information reaches awareness, though the relevant perceptual field may remain wide (a basketball player tracking the entire court).

Effortlessness. The action feels easy despite high objective difficulty. An expert pianist performing a technically demanding passage experiences smoothness rather than strain. This effortlessness is paradoxical: the task would be effortful for anyone less skilled, and the same performer would find it effortful if they tried to monitor their execution explicitly (the choking phenomenon).

Altered temporality. Time perception distorts. Hours pass in what feels like minutes. Occasionally the reverse: a split-second decision in sport dilates into a spacious moment of apparent slow motion. The normal metronome of temporal experience — the roughly stable pace of the specious present — is disrupted. Time becomes elastic, shaped by engagement rather than clock.

Loss of reflective self-awareness. The inner commentator quiets. The running narrative — “Am I doing this right? What do they think of me?” — fades. The self does not disappear entirely; there is still a subject of experience. But the reflective layer — the self watching itself — drops away. Notably, the transitions into and out of this state are themselves invisible — an instance of the transition-void, where the cognitive stance required for observation is incompatible with the transition itself. What remains is pre-reflective self-awareness: experience that belongs to someone without anyone standing back to observe that belonging.

Intrinsic reward. The activity becomes its own motivation. External goals recede; the doing itself is satisfying. Csikszentmihalyi called this autotelic experience.

Sense of control without controlling. The agent feels masterful yet does not experience themselves as exerting control. There is no gap between intention and execution, no moment of deciding what to do next. Action and awareness merge.

Flow as Evidence Against the Deflationary Reading

The claim that flow is simply automatised processing — skilled execution running without conscious involvement — faces several problems.

Adaptiveness. Flow involves real-time creative adaptation that stretches beyond what implicit systems have demonstrated. The jazz musician in flow does not recombine memorised fragments; they generate novel phrases responsive to what other musicians are playing, incorporating harmonic and rhythmic ideas that emerge in the moment. This level of situated creativity — novelty responsive to an unrepeatable context — exceeds documented capabilities of procedural memory systems.

The choking contrast. If flow were unconscious automaticity, then conscious re-engagement should be neutral or helpful. Instead, conscious re-engagement during flow destroys performance. The asymmetry is telling: choking disrupts skilled performance specifically while leaving unskilled performance relatively unaffected. If the issue were mere resource competition, adding monitoring should degrade all performance levels equally. The asymmetry suggests that flow and explicit monitoring are incompatible modes of conscious engagement.

Phenomenal richness. Subjects in flow report vivid, detailed experience — not the blankness of automatised action. They describe the experience as among the most intensely conscious moments of their lives. The pianist in flow hears each note with unusual clarity. If consciousness had withdrawn, why is experience so vivid?

Memory formation. Flow states produce rich, detailed episodic memories — the kind associated with conscious encoding. Elevated noradrenergic and dopaminergic activity during flow likely contributes, but the character of flow memories — their experiential richness, their first-person detail, their narrative structure — resembles consciously encoded episodes rather than the fragmented traces that high-arousal but unreflective states typically produce.

The Selection Framework and Flow

The Map proposes that flow represents consciousness selecting among options without the resistance that generates effort phenomenology.

The agency-passivity axis involves at least two distinguishable dimensions: causal contribution (whether consciousness shapes outcomes) and phenomenal effort (whether the contribution feels like work). Normally these correlate. Flow dissociates them: causal contribution remains high while phenomenal effort drops to near zero.

The analogy: effort is friction at the interface. When a hinge is stiff, turning it requires force; when well-oiled, the same rotation occurs without resistance. Similarly, consciousness in flow selects among neural options — maintaining the selection interface — but the selection meets no resistance. Skill has prepared the options so well that the right choice presents itself without competition from viable alternatives.

This explains the skill-challenge balance that Csikszentmihalyi identified as flow’s precondition. Too little challenge: consciousness has nothing to select, and the result is boredom. Too much challenge: the options are poorly prepared, requiring effortful deliberation. Optimal challenge: the options are well-prepared but the task is not trivial — consciousness selects smoothly among genuinely demanding alternatives.

The Map’s concept of interface-friction offers a speculative reframing. If consciousness operates through a neural interface, the experience of effort may be the phenomenology of friction — consciousness working against an unprepared substrate. Skill acquisition reduces interface friction: practice aligns the physical system with consciousness’s selection tendencies. Effort drops not because consciousness withdraws but because the interface becomes frictionless.

Temporal Dissolution in Flow

Flow’s distortion of time perception is philosophically significant.

Normal temporal experience involves retention and protention — holding the just-past in awareness while anticipating what comes next. In flow, this structure transforms.

Compression. When hours feel like minutes, the normal markers of temporal passage — the periodic checking of progress, the awareness of duration — disappear. Without reflective self-monitoring, there is no one keeping time. The experience is of an extended present — not timelessness, but a present that stretches without the usual segmentation.

Dilation. When moments in sport expand — the tennis player seeing the ball in apparent slow motion — temporal resolution increases. More perceptual detail is packed into each moment. This is consistent with the attention interface operating at higher bandwidth.

Both effects suggest that temporal experience is shaped by the mode of conscious engagement. Effortful consciousness, with its constant self-monitoring, creates the experience of time passing in discrete chunks. Flow consciousness, absorbed in the present moment, allows temporal experience to reshape itself around the task’s demands. This connects to temporal integration: flow represents maximally effective binding — experience flowing smoothly without the gaps that reflective monitoring introduces.

The Self in Flow

Flow transforms self-experience without eliminating the self.

Csikszentmihalyi described the “loss of self-consciousness” in flow. This is easily misread as the loss of self per se. What disappears is the narrative self — the running commentary, the self-image management. What remains is the minimal self — the bare subjectivity that makes experience experiential.

Contemplative traditions have mapped this territory extensively. Buddhist jhana practice cultivates states of absorbed concentration where the narrative self falls silent while awareness intensifies. Zen mushin (no-mind) is better described as non-reflective engagement — consciousness acting without the intermediary of self-narration. The parallels between flow and contemplative states are instructive: both involve the dropping of reflective self-monitoring, the intensification of present-moment awareness, the effortless quality of activity, and altered time perception. The difference is that flow achieves these through task absorption while contemplative practice achieves them through direct attention training.

For the Map’s framework, this supports a layered model: minimal self-awareness is constitutive of consciousness itself, while narrative self-awareness is an additional capacity that can engage or withdraw. Flow operates primarily at the noetic level — experiential awareness of the present situation — while the autonoetic layer (reflective self-knowledge, mental time travel) falls silent.

When Skills Must Change

The paradox deepens when mastery must be revised. Anyone who has rebuilt a golf swing, restructured a piano fingering, or shifted from one programming paradigm to another knows a peculiar phenomenological state: the old way no longer works automatically, the new way hasn’t yet consolidated, and you occupy an unstable middle ground where performance temporarily degrades.

Skill transition differs from initial learning in a critical respect: there is already an entrenched pattern in place. The novice confronts a blank space—nothing automated, everything requiring conscious attention. The person in transition confronts something worse: a well-grooved automaticity that fires reliably but wrongly for the new purpose.

Interference and involuntary reversion. The most immediately striking feature is the old pattern asserting itself. Under pressure, fatigue, or momentary inattention, the body snaps back to the previous way. The learner feels this as a loss of control—not the absence of control that characterises the raw novice, but a positive tug toward a pattern they are trying to abandon.

The transition valley. During transition, overall performance drops below the old level. The learner knows they could perform better if they reverted. The temptation to abandon the restructuring is itself a conscious experience—a felt pull toward the comfortable and familiar, resisted by a deliberate commitment to the new pattern. This has an existential quality absent from initial learning: the learner has already tasted mastery and must voluntarily surrender it.

Doubled awareness. Transition forces a return to step-by-step monitoring—but with an important difference. The novice monitors because they have no alternative. The person in transition monitors because they must override an alternative. This creates doubled awareness: attention to the task itself, plus metacognitive vigilance over which pattern is currently driving execution.

Automatic skills, once consolidated into procedural memory, are remarkably resistant to conscious override. Bernstein (1967) analysed this as a stable coordinative structure—a solution to the degrees-of-freedom problem that, once found, resists reorganisation. Dismantling it requires consciousness to actively suppress a functional system that it previously built. The effort involved is distinctive—not the effort of learning something new, but the effort of preventing something old from happening while something new takes its place.

The Map’s interface model makes specific predictions about this experience. If consciousness normally operates by biasing neural selection among available patterns, then transition is a period when the available patterns are in flux—old attractors weakening, new ones not yet stable. Interface friction increases: consciousness must intervene at levels of motor detail it had previously delegated.

Eventually, transition resolves. The new pattern consolidates, automaticity returns, and consciousness withdraws again. The return problem reveals that the paradox of effortless mastery is cyclical, not terminal. Consciousness does not build a skill and leave permanently. It builds, withdraws, and stands ready to return when circumstances demand restructuring. Every domain of expertise can be revised, extended, or combined with other skills. The architect never truly retires; they wait for the next renovation.

What Skilled Performance Reveals About Consciousness

Against Epiphenomenalism

If consciousness were epiphenomenal, flow and non-flow should produce identical performance for identical tasks — the presence or absence of conscious engagement would make no difference. Instead, performance depends on the mode of consciousness. The same pianist playing the same passage performs differently when absorbed (flow), when self-monitoring (choking), and when bored (disengagement). The epiphenomenalist can reply that a common neural cause produces both the performance difference and the phenomenal difference. But this reply must explain why the phenomenal modes are so precisely and specifically correlated with performance profiles across vastly different domains — motor, cognitive, creative. The Map’s framework provides one: the mode of consciousness shapes physical outcomes because consciousness genuinely selects among neural options, and the mode determines how that selection proceeds.

Against Simple Functionalism

Flow challenges accounts that identify consciousness with access or report. During flow, the agent cannot report on their own cognitive processes — the reflective access that supports verbal report has been suspended. Yet flow is among the most qualitatively vivid experiences people report. The sheer intensity of the phenomenal-access dissociation in flow — maximal experiential richness coinciding with minimal reflective access — strains any account that ties phenomenal consciousness to the functional role of information access.

For the Selection Framework

The full arc of skilled performance — from effortful learning through delegated mastery to frictionless flow and back through painful restructuring — fits naturally into the Map’s selection framework. Consciousness doesn’t need effort to select — it needs effort only when selection is difficult. In flow, high skill combined with appropriate challenge creates conditions where the right option is nearly determined by the situation, yet the situation is complex enough that genuine selection (not mere reflex) occurs. During skill transition, interface friction returns as old and new patterns compete for selection. The cycle of building, withdrawing, flowing, and rebuilding maps the full range of consciousness’s causal engagement with the physical world.

What Would Challenge This View?

The claim that consciousness plays an irreducible causal role could be undermined by several findings.

If purely passive exposure produced identical skill gains to deliberate practice—same hours, same content, no conscious engagement—the causal role of consciousness in building procedural structures would be unnecessary. Current evidence strongly favours the deliberate practice account (Ericsson et al., 1993), but the comparison is difficult to make rigorously because “no conscious engagement” is hard to enforce experimentally.

If body schema expansion occurred identically whether tools were used actively or merely held passively, the claim that consciousness shapes the interface would weaken. Iriki’s findings specifically show that active use is required, but more controlled studies across a wider range of tools and skills would strengthen or weaken this conclusion.

The strongest physicalist counterargument is that executive attention networks, error-prediction signals, and prefrontal-to-basal-ganglia transfer are sufficient to explain everything the Map attributes to consciousness. On this view, “conscious engagement” is a folk-psychological label for neural operations. The Map’s response: this redescription succeeds only if one assumes that conscious and unconscious processing are identical in kind. The phenomenological evidence supports the rejection of that assumption—the felt character of effortful concentration is not idle accompaniment, because when it degrades through fatigue, distraction, or choking, performance degrades with it in ways that neural descriptions alone struggle to predict.

Relation to Site Perspective

Dualism: Skill acquisition reveals a gap between physical description and lived experience that property dualism predicts. Two bodies can be physically identical yet phenomenologically different—one a pianist’s body, the other a non-pianist’s—because the body schema carries a history of conscious engagement that physical description does not capture. Flow deepens this gap: the most vivid form of consciousness coincides with reduced top-down neural control (Dietrich’s transient hypofrontality), a pattern dualism predicts but materialism must explain away.

Bidirectional Interaction: This article’s central finding. Consciousness sculpts the body schema through skilled practice, achieves frictionless selection in flow, and painfully re-engages when skills must change. The body constrains consciousness through its existing habitual repertoire. The full arc—construction, delegation, flow, return—provides a temporal map of bidirectional causation. Each direction of influence is separately demonstrable.

Minimal Quantum Interaction: Body schema plasticity locates one dimension of the interface at the level of neural body maps. Flow may represent the case where consciousness’s selection at the quantum level meets minimal resistance — the neural options have been so well prepared by skill acquisition that the physically undetermined outcomes align with what consciousness would select anyway. The effort of the Zeno mechanism drops because the desired state is already strongly favoured by the physical dynamics.

Occam’s Razor Has Limits: The physicalist can describe skill development in neural terms—Hebbian learning, cortical remapping, procedural consolidation. This description is accurate as far as it goes. But it does not explain why neural reorganisation is accompanied by a transformation in the felt character of the body, why the phenomenal quality of engagement correlates with outcomes, or why the tempting parsimonious reading of flow — that it’s just the brain running on autopilot — fails against the evidence of vivid consciousness, creative adaptation, and rich memory encoding.

Further Reading

References

  1. Bernstein, N. (1967). The Coordination and Regulation of Movements. Pergamon Press.
  2. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass.
  3. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row.
  4. Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(4), 746-761.
  5. Dreyfus, H. (2002). Intelligence without representation: Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(4), 367-383.
  6. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Free Press.
  7. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
  8. Fitts, P., & Posner, M. (1967). Human Performance. Brooks/Cole.
  9. Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14-21.
  10. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford University Press.
  11. Head, H., & Holmes, G. (1911). Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain, 34(2-3), 102-254.
  12. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport, 7(14), 2325-2330.
  13. Krakauer, J.W., & Shadmehr, R. (2006). Consolidation of Motor Memory. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(1), 58-64.
  14. Leder, D. (1990). The Absent Body. University of Chicago Press.
  15. Macnamara, B.N., Hambrick, D.Z., & Oswald, F.L. (2014). Deliberate Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1608-1618.
  16. Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79-86.
  17. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2012). Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge.
  18. Milner, B. (1962). Les troubles de la mémoire accompagnant des lésions hippocampiques bilatérales. In Physiologie de l’hippocampe, pp. 257-272. CNRS.
  19. Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press.
  20. Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and Consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 26(1), 1-12.
  21. Zahavi, D. (2005). Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective. MIT Press.