Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:51:00.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is information theory, or the assumptions that surround it, holding back neuroscience?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2019

Lee de-Wit Open the ORCID record for Lee de-Wit [Opens in a new window] ,
Vebjørn Ekroll ,
Dietrich Samuel Schwarzkopf  and
Johan Wagemans
Lee de-Wit
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, CambridgeCB2 3EBUnited [email protected]://www.psychol.cam.ac.uk/people/lee-de-wit
Vebjørn Ekroll
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, 5020Bergen, [email protected]://www.uib.no/en/persons/Vebjørn.Ekroll
Dietrich Samuel Schwarzkopf
Affiliation:
School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Auckland, Grafton, Auckland1023, New [email protected]://unidirectory.auckland.ac.nz/people/d-schwarzkopf Experimental Psychology, University College London, LondonWC1N 1PJ, United Kingdom
Johan Wagemans
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven (K.U. Leuven), B-3000Leuven, [email protected]://www.gestaltrevision.be/en/about-us/principal-investigator
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The challenges raised in this article are not with information theory per se, but the assumptions surrounding it. Neuroscience isn't sufficiently critical about the appropriate ‘receiver’ or ‘channel’, focuses on decoding ‘parts’, and often relies on a flawed ‘veridicality’ assumption. If these problematic assumptions were questioned, information theory could be better directed to help us understand how the brain works.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e223
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

de-Wit, L., Alexander, D., Ekroll, V. & Wagemans, J. (2016) Is neuroimaging measuring information in the brain? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(5):1415–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogo, N. & Wagemans, J. (2013) The “side” matters: How configurality is reflected in completion (Discussion Paper). Cognitive Neuroscience 4:31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982b) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Mausfeld, R. (2003) No psychology in–no psychology out. Psychologische Rundschau 54(3):185–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Uexküll, J. (1992) A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica 89(4):319–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar