Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones
Autor(en): | Ehinger, Benedikt V. Haeusser, Katja Ossandon, Jose P. Koenig, Peter |
Stichwörter: | Biology; DECISION; INFORMATION; INTEGRATION; Life Sciences & Biomedicine - Other Topics | Erscheinungsdatum: | 2017 | Herausgeber: | ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD | Journal: | ELIFE | Volumen: | 6 | Zusammenfassung: | Humans often evaluate sensory signals according to their reliability for optimal decision-making. However, how do we evaluate percepts generated in the absence of direct input that are, therefore, completely unreliable? Here, we utilize the phenomenon of filling-in occurring at the physiological blind-spots to compare partially inferred and veridical percepts. Subjects chose between stimuli that elicit filling-in, and perceptually equivalent ones presented outside the blind spots, looking for a Gabor stimulus without a small orthogonal inset. In ambiguous conditions, when the stimuli were physically identical and the inset was absent in both, subjects behaved opposite to optimal, preferring the blind-spot stimulus as the better example of a collinear stimulus, even though no relevant veridical information was available. Thus, a percept that is partially inferred is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input. In other words: Humans treat filled-in inferred percepts as more real than veridical ones. |
ISSN: | 2050084X | DOI: | 10.7554/eLife.21761 |
Zur Langanzeige
Seitenaufrufe
6
Letzte Woche
1
1
Letzter Monat
2
2
geprüft am 28.04.2024