Skip to content

Comparing theories of consciousness: Object position, not probe modality, reliably influences experience and accuracy in object recognition tasks.

Simon Hviid Del Pin, Zuzanna Skóra, Kristian Sandberg, Morten Overgaard, Michał Wierzchoń

Consciousness and Cognition August 14, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2020.102990 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Experimental study Peer reviewed
Key findings No reliable differences in accuracy or reported experience emerged between Image and Word probes, contrary to sparse-view predictions. Object position influenced both accuracy and reported experience, which the authors argue is surprising for rich views because it seemingly implies different access across the visual field. The authors conclude that both rich and sparse positions need further development to account for these results.

Abstract

People often claim seeing images completely despite performing poorly. This highlights an issue with conscious representations. We introduce an experimental manipulation aiming to disentangle two prevalent positions: Rich views posit that people virtually represent the external world with unlimited capacity; Sparse views state that representations are reconstructed from expectations and information. In two experiments using the object recognition task, we tested two probe types: Images, which should aid reconstruction more, and Words, which should aid it less. From a sparse view, one should expect that Images lead to greater accuracy and reported experience. We found no reliable differences in accuracy and reported experience across probe types; however, we observed that the object positions influenced both accuracy and reported experience, which is surprising from a Rich view as it seemingly requires assumptions of different access across the visual field. Both theoretical positions thus currently need further development to explain our results.

Citations in the library