You are currently browsing the thoughts on thoughts weblog archives for the day 17/01/2009.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Dec | Feb » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
- 08/02/2012: Deaf hearing
- 05/02/2012: Failure of conscious thought suppression
- 02/02/2012: What is the preconscious?
- 30/01/2012: Are there two types of cognition?
- 27/01/2012: The new way to view cognition
- 24/01/2012: About the claustrum
- 21/01/2012: Two sides of synchrony
- 18/01/2012: Skull shape changes are not independent
- 15/01/2012: the other way around
- 12/01/2012: A look at the dogma
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
Archive for 17/01/2009
The moment of decision 2
17/01/2009 by admin.
There is a new Research Report by WP Banks and EA Isham, ‘We Infer Rather than Perceive the Moment We Decided to Act’ (here). I have divided this subject in two and this is the second part dealing with their conclusions.
“On the contrary, we propose that the reported W (reported time when action was consciously initiated) is not uniquely determined by any generator of the RP (EEG readiness potential). Rather, W is the time participants select on the basis of available cues, chief among them being the apparent time of response. Eagleman (2004) suggested that the critical cue for judgment of intention is perception of the response, thus reversing the assumed causal relation between intention and action. Here, we report an explicit test of this hypothesis.”
“A seminal experiment found that the reported time of a decision to perform a simple action was at least 300 ms after the onset of brain activity that normally preceded the action. In Experiment 1, we presented deceptive feedback (an auditory beep) 5 to 60 ms after the action to signify a movement time later than the actual movement. The reported time of decision moved forward in time linearly with the delay in feedback, and came after the muscular initiation of the response at all but the 5-ms delay. In Experiment 2, participants viewed their hand with and without a 120-ms video delay, and gave a time of decision 44 ms later with than without the delay. We conclude that participants’ report of their decision time is largely inferred from the apparent time of response. The perception of a hypothetical brain event prior to the response could have, at most, a small influence.”
“We do not take our findings to indicate that conscious intention has no role in behavior, but rather that the intuitive model of volition is overly simplistic—it assumes a causal model by which an intention is consciously generated and is the immediate cause of an action. Our results imply that the intuitive model has it backwards; generation of responses is largely unconscious, and we infer the moment of decision from the perceived moment of action.”
Posted in will | 1 Comment »