Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:54:33.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fundamental differences between perception and cognition aside from cognitive penetrability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Graeme S. Halford  and
Trevor J. Hine
Graeme S. Halford
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4067, Australia Behavioural Basis of Health, Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane 4122, Australia. g.halford@griffith.edu.aut.hine@griffith.edu.auhttps://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id=15#show_Research
Trevor J. Hine
Affiliation:
Behavioural Basis of Health, Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane 4122, Australia. g.halford@griffith.edu.aut.hine@griffith.edu.auhttps://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id=15#show_Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fundamental differences between perception and cognition argue that the distinction can be maintained independently of cognitive penetrability. The core processes of cognition can be integrated under the theory of relational knowledge. The distinguishing properties include symbols and an operating system, structure-consistent mapping between representations, construction of representations in working memory that enable generation of inferences, and different developmental time courses.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Berthenhal, B. I., Campos, J. J. & Haith, M. M. (1980) Development of visual organization: The perception of subjective contours. Child Development 51:1072–80.Google Scholar
Boothe, R. G., Dobson, V. & Teller, D. Y. (1985) Postnatal development of vision in human and nonhuman primates. Annual Review of Neuroscience 8:495–545.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28:3–71.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2010) Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34:752–75.Google Scholar
Goodwin, G. P. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005) Reasoning about relations. Psychological Review 112:468–93.Google Scholar
Halford, G. S., Andrews, G., Phillips, S. & Wilson, W. H. (2013) The role of working memory in the subsymbolic–symbolic transition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22:210–16.Google Scholar
Halford, G. S., Baker, R., McCredden, J. E. & Bain, J. D. (2005) How many variables can humans process? Psychological Science 16:70–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., Andrews, G. & Phillips, S. (2014) Categorizing cognition: Toward conceptual coherence in the foundations of psychology. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H. & Phillips, S. (2010) Relational knowledge: The foundation of higher cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14:497–505.Google Scholar
Khemlani, S. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012) Theories of the syllogism: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138(3):427–57.Google Scholar
Nayar, K., Franchak, F., Adolph, K. & Kiorpes, L. (2015) From local to global processing: The development of illusory contour perception. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 131:38–55.Google Scholar
Oberauer, K. (2009) Design for a working memory. In: Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, vol. 51, ed. Ross, B. H., pp. 45–100. Elsevier, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, S. & Wilson, W. H. (2014) A category theory explanation for systematicity: Universal constructions. In: The architecture of cognition: Rethinking Fodor and Pylyshyn's systematicity challenge, ed. Calvo, P. & Symons, J., pp. 227–49. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. C. & Bhatt, R. S. (2005) Good continuation affects discrimination of visual pattern information in young infants. Perception and Psychophysics 67:1171–76.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Jacobson, K. & Phillips, A. (1993) Gestalt relations and object perception: A developmental study. Perception 22:1483–501.Google Scholar