Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:18:50.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Excess of individual variability of priors prevents successful development of general models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Talis Bachmann
Talis Bachmann*
Affiliation:
School of Law and Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tartu (Tallinn branch), 10119 Tallinn, Estonia. talis.bachmann@ut.ee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Perceptual judgments are influenced by a multitude of factors in addition to the perceptual input. Particularly, the widely varying individual neurobiological endophenotypes and individual differences in the propensity for expectation-based illusory percepts make it unlikely that optimality is possible to define and defend by the type of abstract modeling approach criticized by Rahnev & Denison (R&D).

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aru, J. & Bachmann, T. (2017) Expectation creates something out of nothing: The role of attention in iconic memory reconsidered. Consciousness and Cognition 53:203–10.Google Scholar
Fechner, G. T. (1882) Revision der Hauptpunkte der Psychophysik: Sektion 21 (pp. 290–99). Breitkopf und Hertel. Reprinted and translated in Psychological Research 49(1987):209–12.Google Scholar
Jannati, A. & Di Lollo, V. (2012) Relative blindsight arises from a criterion confound in metacontrast masking: Implications for theories of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 21:307–14.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1968) Method, findings, and theory in studies of visual masking. Psychological Bulletin 70:404–25.Google Scholar
Mack, A., Erol, M., Clarke, J. & Bert, J. (2016) No iconic memory without attention. Consciousness and Cognition 40:1–8.Google Scholar
Maksimov, M., Vaht, M., Harro, J. & Bachmann, T. (2013) Can common functional gene variants affect visual discrimination in metacontrast masking? PLoS ONE 8(1):e55287. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055287.Google Scholar
Maksimov, M., Vaht, M., Harro, J. & Bachmann, T. (2015a) Single 5HTR2A-1438 A/G nucleotide polymorphism affects performance in a metacontrast masking task: Implications for vulnerability testing and neuromodulation of pyramidal cells. Neuroscience Letters 584:129–34.Google Scholar
Maksimov, M., Vaht, M., Murd, C., Harro, J. & Bachmann, T. (2015b) Brain dopaminergic system related genetic variability interacts with target/mask timing in metacontrast masking. Neuropsychologia 71:112–18.Google Scholar
Powers, R., Mathys, C. & Corlett, P. R. (2017) Pavlovian conditioning–induced hallucinations result from overweighting of perceptual priors. Science 357:596–600.Google Scholar
Sandberg, K., Timmermans, B., Overgaard, M. & Cleeremans, A. (2010) Measuring consciousness: Is one measure better than the other? Consciousness and Cognition 19(4):1069–78.Google Scholar