Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reply to Macpherson: Further illustrations of the cognitive penetrability of perception

  • Published:
Review of Philosophy and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 09 May 2015

Abstract

My reply to Macpherson begins by addressing whether it is effects of cognition on early vision or perceptual performance that I am interested in. I proceed to address Macpherson’s comments on evidence from cross-modal effects, interpretations of linguistic effects on image detection, evidence from illusions, and the usefulness of predictive coding for understanding cognitive penetration. By stressing the interactive and distributed nature of neural processing, I am committing to a collapse between perception and cognition. Following such a collapse, the very question of whether cognition affects perception becomes ill-posed, but this may be for the best.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barsalou, L.W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59(1): 617–645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burge, T. 2014. Reply to block: adaptation and the upper border of perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/phpr.12136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casasanto, D., and G. Lupyan. 2014. All concepts are Ad Hoc concepts. In Concepts: new directions, ed. E. Margolis and S. Laurence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J.A., and I.R. Olson. 2014. Knowledge is power: how conceptual knowledge transforms visual cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21(4): 843–860. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0564-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çukur, T., S. Nishimoto, A.G. Huth, and J.L. Gallant. 2013. Attention during natural vision warps semantic representation across the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 16(6): 763–770. doi:10.1038/nn.3381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Huettig, F., and G.T.M. Altmann. 2010. Looking at anything that is green when hearing “frog”: how object surface colour and stored object colour knowledge influence language-mediated overt attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.481474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, M., and F. Pulvermüller. 2012. Conceptual representations in mind and brain: theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex 48(7): 805–825. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupyan, G., and E.J. Ward. 2013. Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(35): 14196–14201. doi:10.1073/pnas.1303312110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, F. 2015. Cognitive penetration and predictive coding: a commentary on Lupyan. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. doi:10.1007/s13164-015-0254-3.

  • Mishra, J., A. Martinez, T.J. Sejnowski, and S.A. Hillyard. 2007. Early cross-modal interactions in auditory and visual cortex underlie a sound-induced visual illusion. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 27(15): 4120–4131. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4912-06.2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulvermüller, F. 2013. How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(9): 458–470. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseboom, W., Kawabe, T., & Nishida, S. 2013. The cross-modal double flash illusion depends on featural similarity between cross-modal inducers. Scientific Reports, 3. doi:10.1038/srep03437

  • Sereno, S.C., C.C. Brewer, and P.J. O’Donnell. 2003. Context effects in word recognition evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological Science 14(4): 328–333. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C. 2011. Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 73(4): 971–995. doi:10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinney, D., T. Love, M. Walenski, & E.E. Smith. 2007. Conceptual combination during sentence comprehension evidence for compositional processes. Psychological Science. 18(5): 397–400. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01912.x

  • Yee, E., E.G. Chrysikou, E. Hoffman, and S.L. Thompson-Schill. 2013. Manual experience shapes object representations. Psychological Science 24(6): 909–919. doi:10.1177/0956797612464658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Gary Lupyan

Authors
  1. Gary Lupyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Lupyan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lupyan, G. Reply to Macpherson: Further illustrations of the cognitive penetrability of perception. Rev.Phil.Psych. 6, 585–589 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0255-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0255-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation