Penetrabilidad cognitiva en la percepción visual temprana: Evidencia empírica en humanos

Cognitive penetrability in early visual perception: Empirical evidence in humans

Contenido principal del artículo

Resumen

Con base en un trasfondo teórico sobre las concepciones modulares de la mente de Fodor (2001) y Pinker (2005), el objetivo del presente texto es analizar cualitativemente la solidez de la evidencia experimental de una muestra de artículos publicados entre 2002 y 2017 que apoyan la tesis de la penetrabilidad cognitiva en la percepción visual temprana. El estudio se justifica por las implicaciones que pueden tener los resultados de estas investigaciones para las diferentes concepciones sobre arquitectura mental en funciones perceptuales, procesamiento de la información intra e intermodular e isomorfismo entre arquitectura mental y cerebral. La metodología que se utilizó para realizar este estudio implicó establecimiento de la tesis y de los criterios de inclusión de los artículos a revisar, selección final de los artículos más representativos sobre las subáreas seleccionadas, análisis de la calidad metodológica y de los resultados de éstos, identificación de aportes específicos de cada estudio a la tesis planteada e interpretación y síntesis de los hallazgos. De 26 artículos revisados sobre el tema, se reportan y analizan 7, que se consideran representativos de 4 subáreas: penetrabilidad de expectativas, de percepción del color, de rasgos faciales y de reconocimiento de objetos. Se concluye que hay amplia y sólida evidencia convergente (perceptual y neurofisiológica) a favor de los fenómenos penetrativos en la visión temprana, lo cual apoyaría indirectamente la hipótesis de permeabilidad de los módulos mentales de Pinker. Se formulan recomendaciones sobre aspectos por investigar y variables a controlar en experimentos sobre este tema.

Palabras clave

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Referencias

Bannert, M. M., & Bartels, A. (2013). Decoding the yellow of a gray banana. Current Biology, 23(22), 2268-2272. doi: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213011329 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.09.016

Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmid, A. M., Dale, A. M., Hämäläinen, M. S., Marinkovic, K., Schacter, D. L., Rosen, B. R., & Halgren, E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 103, 449-454. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16407167/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507062103

Bitter, D. (2014). Is low-level visual experience cognitively penetrable? En The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication (Vol. 9) (pp. 1-26). doi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273289064_Is_Low-Level_Visual_Experience_Cognitively_Penetrable DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1082

Boyer, P. & Barret, C. (2015). Intuitive ontologies and domain specifity. En D. M. Buss, The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 161-180). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & sons, Inc. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470939376.ch3

Burke, D. (2014). Why isn't everyone an evolutionary psychologist? Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 910. https://doi. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00910/full DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00910

Chiappe, D. & Gardner, R. (2011). The modularity debate in evolutionary psychology. Theory and Psychology, 22(5), 669-682. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959354311398703 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311398703

Colombo, M. (2013). Moving forward (and beyond) the modularity debate: A network perspective. Philosophy of Science, 80(3), 356-377. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/670331

Davis, T., & Poldrack, R. A. (2013). Mesuaring neural representations with fMRI: Practices and pitfalls. Annals of th New York Academy of Sciences, 1296, 108-134. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23738883/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12156

Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2015). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1-77. doi: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/cognition-does-not-affect-perception-evaluating-the-evidence-for-topdown-effects/920E2AE74C642DD3CB3FA8160EA1D84A

Fodor, J. (2001). The mind doesn´t work that way. The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/mind-doesnt-work-way DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4627.001.0001

Gamond, L., George, N., Lemaréchal, J-D., Hugueville, L., Adam, C., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2011). Early influence of prior experience on face perception. NeuroImage, 54, 1415–1426. doi: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.081

Gilbert, C. D., & Li, W. (2013). Top-down influences on visual processing. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 14(5), 350–363. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23595013/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3476

Hansen, T., Olkkonen, M., Walter, S. & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2006). Memory modulates color appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 9(11), 1367 – 1368. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17041591/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1794

Hsieh, P. J., Vul, E., & Kanwisher, N. (2010). Recognition alters the spatial pattern of fMRI activation in early retinotopic cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103, 1501–1507. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071627/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00812.2009

Kok, P., Jehee, J. F. M., & de Lange F. P. (2012). Less is more: Expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex. Neuron, 75(2), 265-270. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22841311/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034

Kok, P., Brouwer, G. J., van Gerven, M. A. J. & de Lange, F. P. (2013). Prior expectations bias sensory representations in visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(41),16275–16284. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22841311/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0742-13.2013

Lachaux, J. Ph., Rudrauf, D., & Kahane, P. (2003). Intracranial EEG and human brain mapping. Journal of Physiology, 97, 613-628. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15242670/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2004.01.018

Lee, T.S., & Mumford, D. (2003). Hierarchical bayesian inference in the visualcortex. The Journal of Optical Society of America A. Optics and Image Science and Vision, 20, 1434–1448. doi: https://www.osapublishing.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-20-7-1434 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.20.001434

Levin, D. T., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 35(4), 501–512. doi: https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~mrbworks/articles/2006_JEPG.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.501

Macpherson, F. (2012). Cognitive penetration of color experience: Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84(1), 24-62. doi: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00481.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00481.x

Macpherson, F. (2017). The relationship between cognitive penetration and predictive coding. Consciousness and Cognition, 47, 6–16. doi: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810016300496 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.04.001

Marchi, M., & Newen, A. (2015). Cognitive penetrability and emotion recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 828. doi: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00828/full DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00828

Muckli, L., & Petro, L. S. (2013). Network interactions: non‐geniculate input to V1. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 195–201. doi: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438813000366 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.020

Newen, A., & Vetter, P. (2017). Why the cognitive penetration of our perceptual experience is still the most plausible account. Consciousness and Cognition, 47, 26-37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27667320/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.09.005

Nienborg, H., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2015). Belief states as a framework to explain extra-retinal influences in visual cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 32, 45–52. doi: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095943881400213X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.10.013

Nusslock, R., Young, C. B., Pornpattananangkul, N., & Damme, K. S. F. (2015). Neurophysiological and neuroimaging techniques. En R. Cautinand, & S. O., Lilienfeld, The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (pp. 1-9). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp557 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp557

O’Callaghan, C., Kveraga, K., Shine, J. M., Adams Jr., R. B., & Bar, M. (2017). Predictions penetrate perception: Converging insights from brain, behaviour and disorder. Consciousness and Cognition, 47, 63–74. doi: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764074/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.05.003

Ogilvie, R., & Carruthers, P. (2016). Opening up vision: The case against encapsulation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7, 721–742. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-54268-001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0294-8

Petro, L. S., Smith, F. W., Schyns, P. G. & Muckli, L. (2013). Decoding face categories in diagnostic subregions of primary visual cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 1130–1139. doi: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3816327/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12129

Pinker, S. (2005). So How Does the Mind Work? Mind & Language, 20(1), 1–24. https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/so_how_does_the_mind_work.pdf https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/so_how_does_the_mind_work.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-1064.2005.00274.x

Pinto, Y., van Gaal, S., de Lange, F. P., Lamme, V. A. F., & Seth, A. K. (2015). Expectations accelerate entry of visual stimuli into awareness. Journal of Vision, 15(8), 13, 1-15. doi: https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2337707 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1167/15.8.13

Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. The behavioral and brain sciences, 22(3), 341-423. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11301517/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002022

Raftopoulos, A. (2014). The cognitive impenetrability of the content of early vision is a necessary and sufficient condition for purely nonconceptual content. Philosophical Psychology, 27(5), 601–620. doi: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2012.729486 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2012.729486

Raftopoulos, A. (2019). Pre-cueing, early vision, and cognitive penetrability. En C. Limbeck-Lilienau & F. Stadler, The Philosophy of perception (pp. 217-234). The Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110657920-013/html DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110657920-013

Roelfsema, P. R., & deLange, F. P. (2016). Early visual cortex as a multiscale cognitive blackboard. Annual Review of Vision Science 2(1), 131-151. doi: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-vision-111815-114443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-111815-114443

Samaha, J., Boutonnet, B., & Lupyan, G. (2016). How prior knowledge prepares perception: Prestimulus oscillations carry perceptual expectations and influence early visual responses. bioRvix, 076687. doi: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/076687v1.full DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/076687

Shaughnessy, J. J., Zeichmeister, E. B., & Zeichmeister, J. S. (2007). Métodos de Investigación en Psicología. México: McGraw-Hill.

Shettleworth, S. (2012). Modularity, comparative cognition and human uniqueness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Science, 367, 2794–2802 doi: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427548/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0211

Stokes, D. (2013). Cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophy Compass, 8(7), 646–663. doi: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12043

Stokes, D. R., & Bergeron, V. (2015). Modular architectures and informational encapsulation: A dilemma. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 315-338. doi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272377410_Modular_architectures_and_informational_encapsulation_a_dilemma DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-015-0107-z

Seriès, P., & Seitz, A. R. (2010). Learning what to expect (in visual perception). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:668. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00668/full DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00668

Vetter P., & Newen, A. (2014).Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 62–75. doi: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24836978/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.007

Citaciones