Evaluating cognitive penetrability of perception across the senses

IF 16.8 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Nature reviews psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1038/s44159-024-00382-1
Petra Vetter, Stephanie Badde, Elisa Raffaella Ferrè, Janina Seubert, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
{"title":"Evaluating cognitive penetrability of perception across the senses","authors":"Petra Vetter, Stephanie Badde, Elisa Raffaella Ferrè, Janina Seubert, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00382-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A central question about the human mind is whether perception is an encapsulated process driven purely by sensory information or whether it is intricately linked with cognitive processes. This debate about the cognitive penetrability of perception is discussed in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy. Thus far, the debate has centred on vision, without major attempts to examine other senses. In this Review, we provide an overview of the key empirical evidence about cognitive penetrability of perception in vision, audition, somatosensation (including proprioception and pain perception), vestibular perception and chemosensation (gustation, chemesthesis and olfaction). We conclude that many (but not all) of the senses are cognitively penetrable. Specifically, cognitive penetrability seems to vary with the extent to which a sense is intrinsically multimodal, the extent to which it receives indirect cognitive influences, and whether hedonic evaluation is an integral aspect of the perceptual experience. We suggest that the debate about cognitive penetrability needs to be more differentiated with respect to the sensory modality of the perceptual experience and the diversity of cognitive influences on that modality. The debate over cognitive penetrability of perception, which has been largely limited to vision, remains unsolved; in this Review, Vetter and colleagues detail cognitive influences on perception across vision, audition, somatosensation, vestibular perception and chemosensation to advance the debate.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 12","pages":"804-820"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature reviews psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-024-00382-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A central question about the human mind is whether perception is an encapsulated process driven purely by sensory information or whether it is intricately linked with cognitive processes. This debate about the cognitive penetrability of perception is discussed in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy. Thus far, the debate has centred on vision, without major attempts to examine other senses. In this Review, we provide an overview of the key empirical evidence about cognitive penetrability of perception in vision, audition, somatosensation (including proprioception and pain perception), vestibular perception and chemosensation (gustation, chemesthesis and olfaction). We conclude that many (but not all) of the senses are cognitively penetrable. Specifically, cognitive penetrability seems to vary with the extent to which a sense is intrinsically multimodal, the extent to which it receives indirect cognitive influences, and whether hedonic evaluation is an integral aspect of the perceptual experience. We suggest that the debate about cognitive penetrability needs to be more differentiated with respect to the sensory modality of the perceptual experience and the diversity of cognitive influences on that modality. The debate over cognitive penetrability of perception, which has been largely limited to vision, remains unsolved; in this Review, Vetter and colleagues detail cognitive influences on perception across vision, audition, somatosensation, vestibular perception and chemosensation to advance the debate.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估知觉跨感官的认知穿透性
关于人类思维的一个核心问题是,感知是一个完全由感官信息驱动的浓缩过程,还是与认知过程有着复杂的联系。关于感知的认知穿透性的争论在心理学、认知神经科学和哲学中都有讨论。到目前为止,争论集中在视觉上,没有对其他感官进行重大研究。本文综述了视觉、听觉、躯体感觉(包括本体感觉和痛觉)、前庭感觉和化学感觉(味觉、化学感觉和嗅觉)中知觉的认知穿透性的主要经验证据。我们的结论是,许多(但不是全部)感官是认知上可穿透的。具体地说,认知穿透性似乎随着一种感觉本质上是多模态的程度、它受到间接认知影响的程度以及享乐评价是否是感知体验的一个组成部分而变化。我们建议,关于认知穿透性的辩论需要在感知经验的感官形态和对该形态的认知影响的多样性方面进行更大的区分。关于知觉的认知穿透性的争论,很大程度上局限于视觉,仍然没有解决;在这篇综述中,Vetter及其同事详细介绍了认知对视觉、听觉、体感、前庭感知和化学感觉的影响,以推进辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reply to ‘Structure-based dissociations provide agnostic evidence to the multiple-systems debate’ Single and multiple systems in probabilistic categorization Structure-based dissociations provide agnostic evidence to the multiple-systems debate Reply to ‘Single and multiple systems in probabilistic categorization’ Attachment as a target mechanism in the mental health of child refugees
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1