↓ Skip to main content

No Evidence of Narrowly Defined Cognitive Penetrability in Unambiguous Vision

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
No Evidence of Narrowly Defined Cognitive Penetrability in Unambiguous Vision
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00852
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikki A. Lammers, Edward H. de Haan, Yair Pinto

Abstract

The classical notion of cognitive impenetrability suggests that perceptual processing is an automatic modular system and not under conscious control. Near consensus is now emerging that this classical notion is untenable. However, as recently pointed out by Firestone and Scholl, this consensus is built on quicksand. In most studies claiming perception is cognitively penetrable, it remains unclear which actual process has been affected (perception, memory, imagery, input selection or judgment). In fact, the only available "proofs" for cognitive penetrability are proxies for perception, such as behavioral responses and neural correlates. We suggest that one can interpret cognitive penetrability in two different ways, a broad sense and a narrow sense. In the broad sense, attention and memory are not considered as "just" pre- and post-perceptual systems but as part of the mechanisms by which top-down processes influence the actual percept. Although many studies have proven top-down influences in this broader sense, it is still debatable whether cognitive penetrability remains tenable in a narrow sense. The narrow sense states that cognitive penetrability only occurs when top-down factors are flexible and cause a clear illusion from a first person perspective. So far, there is no strong evidence from a first person perspective that visual illusions can indeed be driven by high-level flexible factors. One cannot be cognitively trained to see and unsee visual illusions. We argue that this lack of convincing proof for cognitive penetrability in the narrow sense can be explained by the fact that most research focuses on foveal vision only. This type of perception may be too unambiguous for transient high-level factors to control perception. Therefore, illusions in more ambiguous perception, such as peripheral vision, can offer a unique insight into the matter. They produce a clear subjective percept based on unclear, degraded visual input: the optimal basis to study narrowly defined cognitive penetrability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Professor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 45%
Neuroscience 6 21%
Philosophy 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Design 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,012,755
of 26,233,885 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,424
of 35,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,392
of 330,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#198
of 587 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,233,885 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 587 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.