“…However, this case involves other non‐visual features such emotions, familiarity and memory and thus I will not be interested in this case either. Hence, I think the best candidate for an investigation about the nature of visual FOP is the remaining case, namely, the debate on picture perception, where it is widely agreed that, although depicted objects foster in the onlookers a sort of visual experience similar to that obtained in face‐to‐face perception (Nanay, , but see also ; Lopes, ), they cannot foster any FOP (Nanay, ), or at least not as much as real objects can: they show up as not present (Noë, , p. 84), involving a distinct presence‐in‐absence structure (p. 86), while face‐to‐face experience is comparable to touching the object (p. 87). A good and novel strategy, as well as an important starting point in order to find out what makes objects perceivable as present by us, is the investigation of the reason why we have FOP in face‐to‐face perception and we cannot have this in the perception of depicted objects – with some exceptions (§3).…”