Sensory ecology, as treated across the depth-psychology corpus, designates the relational field in which human sensorium and animate environment co-constitute one another — a field in which perception is never passive reception but participatory engagement with a world that presses back. The most sustained and theoretically committed treatment appears in David Abram’s phenomenological naturalism, where the plurality and bifurcation of the sense organs are read as structural evidence that the human body is inherently open-circuited toward the world, completing itself only in ecological encounter. Abram draws on Merleau-Ponty to argue that the senses do not merely gather data but interweave with other organisms and landscapes in a continuous reciprocity; to lose that reciprocity is to lose orientation in the full sense. Alan Fogel extends this toward embodied self-awareness: the sensory organs evolved inside nature and remain calibrated to its textures, sounds, and chemistries, so that modern estrangement from nonhuman environments registers as somatic disorder. Antonio Damasio, approaching from neuroscience, grounds sensory ecology biologically, tracing the evolution of image-making capacities from the organism’s interior mapping outward to the differentiated portals of the five senses. Robert Bly notes, from a poetic and shadow-psychological vantage, that Western ocularcentrism has atrophied the old sensory harmony, and that the recovery of peripheral senses is inseparable from the recovery of the shadow self. Together these voices make sensory ecology a diagnostic concept: attunement to the more-than-human perceptual field is an index of psychological wholeness, and its diminishment marks a civilizational pathology.