熟悉改变知觉意识的带宽

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1162/jocn_a_02140
Michael A. Cohen;Skyler Sung;Zaki Alaoui
{"title":"熟悉改变知觉意识的带宽","authors":"Michael A. Cohen;Skyler Sung;Zaki Alaoui","doi":"10.1162/jocn_a_02140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Results from paradigms like change blindness and inattentional blindness indicate that observers are unaware of numerous aspects of the visual world. However, intuition suggests that perceptual experience is richer than these results indicate. Why does it feel like we see so much when the data suggests we see so little? One possibility stems from the fact that experimental studies always present observers with stimuli that they have never seen before. Meanwhile, when forming intuitions about perceptual experience, observers reflect on their experiences with scenes with which they are highly familiar (e.g., their office). Does prior experience with a scene change the bandwidth of perceptual awareness? Here, we asked if observers were better at noticing alterations to the periphery in familiar scenes compared with unfamiliar scenes. We found that observers noticed changes to the periphery more frequently with familiar stimuli. Signal detection theoretic analyses revealed that when observers are unfamiliar with a stimulus, they are less sensitive at noticing (d′) and are more conservative in their response criterion (c). Taken together, these results suggest that prior knowledge expands the bandwidth of perceptual awareness. It should be stressed that these results challenge the widely held idea that prior knowledge fills in perception. Overall, these findings highlight how prior knowledge plays an important role in determining the limits of perceptual experience and is an important factor to consider when attempting to reconcile the tension between empirical observation and personal introspection.","PeriodicalId":51081,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":"36 8","pages":"1546-1556"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Familiarity Alters the Bandwidth of Perceptual Awareness\",\"authors\":\"Michael A. Cohen;Skyler Sung;Zaki Alaoui\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jocn_a_02140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Results from paradigms like change blindness and inattentional blindness indicate that observers are unaware of numerous aspects of the visual world. However, intuition suggests that perceptual experience is richer than these results indicate. Why does it feel like we see so much when the data suggests we see so little? One possibility stems from the fact that experimental studies always present observers with stimuli that they have never seen before. Meanwhile, when forming intuitions about perceptual experience, observers reflect on their experiences with scenes with which they are highly familiar (e.g., their office). Does prior experience with a scene change the bandwidth of perceptual awareness? Here, we asked if observers were better at noticing alterations to the periphery in familiar scenes compared with unfamiliar scenes. We found that observers noticed changes to the periphery more frequently with familiar stimuli. Signal detection theoretic analyses revealed that when observers are unfamiliar with a stimulus, they are less sensitive at noticing (d′) and are more conservative in their response criterion (c). Taken together, these results suggest that prior knowledge expands the bandwidth of perceptual awareness. It should be stressed that these results challenge the widely held idea that prior knowledge fills in perception. Overall, these findings highlight how prior knowledge plays an important role in determining the limits of perceptual experience and is an important factor to consider when attempting to reconcile the tension between empirical observation and personal introspection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"36 8\",\"pages\":\"1546-1556\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10596010/\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10596010/","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

变化盲和无意盲等范式的研究结果表明,观察者对视觉世界的许多方面都不了解。然而,直觉表明,知觉经验比这些结果所显示的更为丰富。为什么数据表明我们看到的东西很少,而我们却感觉看到了很多?一种可能是,实验研究总是向观察者提供他们从未见过的刺激物。同时,在形成关于知觉经验的直觉时,观察者会对他们非常熟悉的场景(例如他们的办公室)进行反思。先前的场景经验是否会改变知觉意识的带宽?在此,我们询问观察者在熟悉的场景中是否比在不熟悉的场景中更能注意到外围的变化。在这里,我们发现观察者更频繁地注意到熟悉刺激的外围变化。信号检测理论分析表明,当观察者对刺激不熟悉时,他们的注意灵敏度较低(d'),反应标准较为保守(c)。总之,这些结果表明,先验知识扩大了知觉意识的带宽。需要强调的是,这些结果对人们普遍认为先验知识可以填充知觉的观点提出了质疑。总之,这些研究结果凸显了先验知识在决定知觉经验的局限性方面所起的重要作用,也是在试图调和经验观察与个人内省之间的矛盾时需要考虑的一个重要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Familiarity Alters the Bandwidth of Perceptual Awareness
Results from paradigms like change blindness and inattentional blindness indicate that observers are unaware of numerous aspects of the visual world. However, intuition suggests that perceptual experience is richer than these results indicate. Why does it feel like we see so much when the data suggests we see so little? One possibility stems from the fact that experimental studies always present observers with stimuli that they have never seen before. Meanwhile, when forming intuitions about perceptual experience, observers reflect on their experiences with scenes with which they are highly familiar (e.g., their office). Does prior experience with a scene change the bandwidth of perceptual awareness? Here, we asked if observers were better at noticing alterations to the periphery in familiar scenes compared with unfamiliar scenes. We found that observers noticed changes to the periphery more frequently with familiar stimuli. Signal detection theoretic analyses revealed that when observers are unfamiliar with a stimulus, they are less sensitive at noticing (d′) and are more conservative in their response criterion (c). Taken together, these results suggest that prior knowledge expands the bandwidth of perceptual awareness. It should be stressed that these results challenge the widely held idea that prior knowledge fills in perception. Overall, these findings highlight how prior knowledge plays an important role in determining the limits of perceptual experience and is an important factor to consider when attempting to reconcile the tension between empirical observation and personal introspection.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
151
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience investigates brain–behavior interaction and promotes lively interchange among the mind sciences.
期刊最新文献
Reward Accelerates the Preparation of Goal-directed Actions under Conflict. Amygdalar Excitation of Hippocampal Interneurons Can Lead to Emotion-driven Overgeneralization of Context. Real Face Value: The Processing of Naturalistic Facial Expressions in the Macaque Inferior Temporal Cortex. The Laboratory of Brain and Cognition: A Brief History. Understanding Cortical Streams from a Computational Perspective.
×
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