Evidências empíricas sobre a penetrabilidade cognitiva na percepção visual inicial em humanos
Barra lateral de artigos
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Los autores que publican en la Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:
- El Autor o los autores, desde que presenta(n) a consideración de esta revista su manuscrito, esta(n) informado(s) acerca de la política de Acceso Abierto, como condición indisociable de publicación, lo que significa que ni él(los), ni la revista han de percibir ingreso alguno por concepto de la lectura de resúmenes o del artículo completo, tampoco por su uso o explotación para generar nuevo conocimiento o para desarrollar aprendizajes alrededor de la obra.
- Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo, al igual que licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacionalque permite que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado, siempre que se haga mención a la autoría del trabajo y la primera publicación en esta revista, no se utilice con fines comerciales y que las obras que se deriven del artículo se compartan en iguales condiciones.
- Los conceptos y opiniones expresados en los artículos son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores y no comprometen a la Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología ni a la Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana. Los contenidos de esta revista se distribuyen bajo licencia de tipo Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional, la cual exige el debido reconocimiento de las obras y cuyos términos se encuentran en: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
- La Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología es una revista de acceso abierto, por lo que tanto el proceso editorial como los contenidos publicados están disponibles para todos los usuarios sin cargo alguno: la Revista no realiza cobro alguno por acceso, lectura o descarga de contenidos ni por procesos o actividades de la editorial con fines de publicación.
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Com base no referencial teórico sobre as concepções modulares da mente de Fodor (2001) e Pinker (2005), o objetivo deste texto é analisar qualitativamente a força da evidência experimental de uma amostra de artigos publicados entre 2002 e 2017 que sustentam a tese da penetrabilidade cognitiva na percepção visual inicial. O estudo justifica-se pelas implicações que os resultados dessas investigações podem ter para as diferentes concepções de arquitetura mental em funções perceptivas, processamento de informação intra e intermodular e isomorfismo entre arquitetura mental e cerebral. A metodologia utilizada para a realização deste estudo implicou estabelecimento da tese e os critérios de inclusão dos artigos a serem revisados, seleção final dos artigos mais representativos nas subáreas selecionadas, análise da qualidade metodológica e seus resultados, identificação das contribuições específicas de cada estudo para a tese proposta e interpretação e síntese dos achados. Dos 26 artigos revisados sobre o assunto, 7 são relatados e analisados, os quais são considerados representativos de 4 subáreas: penetrabilidade de expectativas, percepção de cores, características faciais e reconhecimento de objetos. Conclui-se que há ampla e sólida evidência convergente (perceptual e neurofisiológica) a favor dos fenômenos penetrativos na visão inicial, o que indiretamente apoiaria a hipótese de Pinker de permeabilidade dos módulos mentais. São feitas recomendações sobre aspectos a serem investigados e variáveis a serem controladas em experimentos sobre o tema.
Downloads
##plugins.generic.pfl.publicationFactsTitle##
##plugins.generic.pfl.reviewerProfiles## Indisp.
##plugins.generic.pfl.authorStatements##
##plugins.generic.pfl.indexedIn##
-
##plugins.generic.pfl.indexedList##
- ##plugins.generic.pfl.editorAndBoard##
- ##plugins.generic.pfl.profiles##
- ##plugins.generic.pfl.academicSociety##
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
- ##plugins.generic.pfl.publisher##
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
##plugins.generic.pfl.informationFooter## 
##plugins.generic.pfl.maintainedByPKP##
Detalhes do artigo
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
