Graduate studies at Western
In S. Biggs, M. Matthen & D. Stokes (eds.), Perception and Its Modalities. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
|Abstract||The distinction between top-down and bottom-up effects is widely relied on in experimental psychology. However, there is an important problem with the way it is normally defined. Top-down effects are effects of previously-stored information on processing the current input. But on the face of it that includes the information that is implicit in the operation of any psychological process – in its dispositions to transition from some types of representational state to others. This paper suggests a way to distinguish information stored in that way from the kind of influence of prior information that psychologists are concerned to classify as a top-down effect. So-drawn, the distinction is not just of service to theoretical psychology. Asking about the extent of top-down processing is one way to pose some of the questions at issue in philosophical debates about cognitive penetrability – about the extent of the influence of cognitive states on perception. The existence of a theoretically-useful perception-cognition distinction has come under pressure, but even if it has to be abandoned, some of the concerns addressed in the cognitive penetrability literature can be recaptured by asking about the extent of top-down influences on any given psychological process. That formulation is more general, since it can be applied to any psychological process, not just those that are paradigmatically perceptual.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Irene Appelbaum (1998). Fodor, Modularity, and Speech Perception. Philosophical Psychology 11 (3):317-330.
Carl F. Craver & William Bechtel (2007). Top-Down Causation Without Top-Down Causes. Biology and Philosophy 22 (4):547-563.
Andreas Roepstorff & Chris Frith (2004). What's at the Top in the Top-Down Control of Action? Script-Sharing and 'Top-Top' Control of Action in Cognitive Experiments. Psychological Research 68:189--198.
Angus W. MacDonald (2003). Reconciling Schizophrenic Deficits in Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes: Not Yet. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (1):96-96.
Miles A. Whittington (2004). Gamma Rhythms as Liminal Operators in Sensory Processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):807-808.
Peter König, Carl Chiang & Astrid von Stein (1997). Internal Context and Top-Down Processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):691-692.
Martin Sarter & Gary G. Berntson (2004). Underconstrained Thalamic Activation + Underconstrained Top-Down Modulation of Cortical Input Processing = Underconstrained Perceptions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):803-804.
Lester E. Krueger (1999). An Even Stronger Case for the Cognitive Impenetrability of Visual Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):382-383.
Stephen Grossberg (1998). Representations Need Self-Organizing Top-Down Expectations to Fit a Changing World. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):473-474.
Enkhbold Nyamsuren & Niels A. Taatgen (2013). Set as an Instance of a Real-World Visual-Cognitive Task. Cognitive Science 37 (1):146-175.
M. Füllsack (2012). Author's Response: Systems as Realities Sui Generis with Eigenbehavior? Constructivist Foundations 8 (1):114-116.
David W. Gow (2000). One Phonemic Representation Should Suffice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (3):331-331.
Added to index2011-12-16
Total downloads46 ( #28,168 of 738,054 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,232 of 738,054 )
How can I increase my downloads?