Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:06:55.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carving nature at its joints or cutting its effective loops? On the dangers of trying to disentangle intertwined mental processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Robert L. Goldstone ,
Joshua R. de Leeuw  and
David H. Landy
Robert L. Goldstone
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Program in Cognitive Science Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.indiana.edu/~pcl/
Joshua R. de Leeuw
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Program in Cognitive Science Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.indiana.edu/~pcl/
David H. Landy
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Program in Cognitive Science Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. [email protected]@[email protected]://www.indiana.edu/~pcl/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attention is often inextricably intertwined with perception, and it is deployed not only to spatial regions, but also to sensory dimensions, learned dimensions, and learned complex configurations. Firestone & Scholl's (F&S)'s tactic of isolating visual perceptual processes from attention and action has the negative consequence of neglecting interactions that are critically important for allowing people to perceive their world in efficient and useful ways.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e244
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

Burns, B. & Shepp, B. E. (1988) Dimensional interactions and the structure of psychological space: The representation of hue, saturation, and brightness. Perception and Psychophysics 43:494–507.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. (2000) Unitization during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:86–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, R. L., de Leeuw, J. R. & Landy, D. H. (2015) Fitting perception in and to cognition. Cognition 135:24–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstone, R. L. & Steyvers, M. (2001) The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130:116–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jehee, J. F. M., Ling, S., Swisher, J. D., van Bergen, R. S. & Tong, F. (2012) Perceptual learning selectively refines orientation representations in early visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience 32:16747–53.Google Scholar
Logothetis, N. K, Pauls, J. & Poggio, T. (1995) Shape representation in the inferior cortex of monkeys. Current Biology 5:552–63.Google Scholar
Recanzone, G. H., Schreiner, C. E. & Merzenich, M. M. (1993) Plasticity in the frequency representation of primary auditory cortex following discrimination training in adult owl monkeys. Journal of Neuroscience 13:87–103.Google Scholar
Sacks, O. (2006) A neurologist's notebook, “Stereo Sue,” The New Yorker, 82(18):64–73.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M. & Lightfoot, N. (1997) Perceptual learning of alphanumeric-like characters. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 36:45–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiu, L. & Pashler, H. (1992) Improvement in line orientation discrimination is retinally local but dependent on cognitive set. Perception and Psychophysics 52:582–88.Google Scholar
Wyatte, D., Curran, T. & O'Reilly, R. (2012) The limits of feedforward vision: Recurrent processing promotes robust object recognition when objects are degraded. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24:2248–61.Google Scholar