4 ms·

That's a cool experiment, and a well-written article, thanks! I've had a tiny bit of experience dealing with the visual system in a related but distant field (

by cmehdy 6y ago

That's a cool experiment, and a well-written article, thanks! I've had a tiny bit of experience dealing with the visual system in a related but distant field (the feedback loops of visual accommodation and vergence and conflicts that can emerge with stereoscopic 3d - and I wish I had understood and done actually insightful things..). This left me wondering about the important place of vision-based experiments in the theories of perception as well as consciousness. What are your thoughts about that subject? For example, would similar research be doable with other senses just as well, or is that something that we have a harder time grasping or even formulating (due to a certain bias towards vision) ? edit: I've read the other comment about the double-take so in this case there seems to be some ways to test that out on other senses, but my question still holds when talking about the overall field and the prevalence of vision in this kind fo research

omginternets 6y ago
> For example, would similar research be doable with other senses just as well [...]? Yes, very much so! I believe there is less bias towards vision than you think. Once you have a paradigm that works in vision, replicating it in other sensory modalities is generally low-hanging fruit for subsequent publication. I didn't get the sense that consciousness research was terribly biased towards vision. The fields of audition and haptics are alive and thriving. Here's an experiment I did with MEG in the auditory domain: http://www.unicog.org/publications/Marti%20Thibault%20Dehaene%202014%20PLoSone_%20Extraction%20of%20regularities%20varies%20with%20context.pdf http://www.unicog.org/publications/Marti%20Thibault%20Dehaen...
- cmehdy 6y ago
  It's probably the projection of my own bias there, thanks for your perspective! (and for the link)
  - omginternets 6y ago
    In all fairness, there probably is some bias towards vision. More exactly, there is bias towards things that are easy to study. Vision and audition are easy to study because screens and speakers are widely available. Touch and proprioception are harder, but still common. Smell and taste are rare. So your point is far from crazy. However, there is sufficient multi-modal evidence that I don't think our current theories of access consciousness are mere visual artifacts.

by cmehdy 6y ago

omginternets 6y ago

> For example, would similar research be doable with other senses just as well [...]? Yes, very much so! I believe there is less bias towards vision than you think. Once you have a paradigm that works in vision, replicating it in other sensory modalities is generally low-hanging fruit for subsequent publication. I didn't get the sense that consciousness research was terribly biased towards vision. The fields of audition and haptics are alive and thriving. Here's an experiment I did with MEG in the auditory domain: http://www.unicog.org/publications/Marti%20Thibault%20Dehaene%202014%20PLoSone_%20Extraction%20of%20regularities%20varies%20with%20context.pdf http://www.unicog.org/publications/Marti%20Thibault%20Dehaen...

cmehdy 6y ago
It's probably the projection of my own bias there, thanks for your perspective! (and for the link)
- omginternets 6y ago
  In all fairness, there probably is some bias towards vision. More exactly, there is bias towards things that are easy to study. Vision and audition are easy to study because screens and speakers are widely available. Touch and proprioception are harder, but still common. Smell and taste are rare. So your point is far from crazy. However, there is sufficient multi-modal evidence that I don't think our current theories of access consciousness are mere visual artifacts.