3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoIt's probably the projection of my own bias there, thanks for your perspective! (and for the link)
- omginternets 6y agoIn 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.