Literature DB >> 26866656

Do we know what we're simulating? Information loss on transferring unconscious perceptual simulation to conscious imagery.

Louise Connell1, Dermot Lynott1.   

Abstract

Perceptual simulations are unconscious and automatic, whereas perceptual imagery is conscious and deliberate, but it is unclear how easily one can transfer perceptual information from unconscious to conscious awareness. We investigated whether it is possible to be aware of what one is mentally representing; that is, whether it is possible to consciously examine the contents of a perceptual simulation without information being lost. Studies 1 and 2 found that people cannot accurately evaluate the perceptual content of a representation unless attention is explicitly drawn to each modality individually. In particular, when asked to consider sensory experience as a whole, modality-specific auditory, gustatory, and haptic information is neglected, and olfactory and visual information distorted. Moreover, information loss is greatest for perceptually complex, multimodal simulations. Study 3 examined if such information loss leads to behavioral consequences by examining performance during lexical decision, a task whose semantic effects emerge from automatic access to the full potential of unconscious perceptual simulation. Results showed that modality-specific perceptual strength consistently outperformed modality-general sensory experience ratings in predicting latency and accuracy, which confirms that the effects of Studies 1 and 2 are indeed due to information being lost in the transfer to conscious awareness. These findings suggest that people indeed have difficulty in transferring perceptual information from unconscious simulation to conscious imagery. People cannot be aware of the full contents of a perceptual simulation because the act of bringing it to awareness leads to systematic loss of information. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26866656     DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  4 in total

1.  Interoception: the forgotten modality in perceptual grounding of abstract and concrete concepts.

Authors:  Louise Connell; Dermot Lynott; Briony Banks
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-08-05       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Eye movements and mental imagery during reading of literary texts with different narrative styles.

Authors:  Lilla Magyari; Anne Mangen; Anežka Kuzmičová; Arthur M Jacobs; Jana Lüdtke
Journal:  J Eye Mov Res       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 0.957

3.  Perceptual and Interoceptive Strength Norms for 270 French Words.

Authors:  Aurélie Miceli; Erika Wauthia; Laurent Lefebvre; Laurence Ris; Isabelle Simoes Loureiro
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-11

4.  The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words.

Authors:  Dermot Lynott; Louise Connell; Marc Brysbaert; James Brand; James Carney
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-06
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.