scholarly journals What was that object? On the role of identity information in the formation of object files and conscious object perception

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (7) ◽  
pp. 2018-2033
Author(s):  
Stephanie C. Goodhew
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 172c
Author(s):  
Heida M Sigurdardottir ◽  
Alexandra Arnardottir ◽  
Eydis T Halldorsdottir ◽  
Hilma R Omarsdottir ◽  
Anna S Valgeirsdottir

Author(s):  
Peter W. Battaglia ◽  
Daniel Kersten ◽  
Paul Schrater
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 76 (8) ◽  
pp. 2212-2220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Troy A. W. Visser ◽  
Matthew F. Tang ◽  
David R. Badcock ◽  
James T. Enns

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuno Janson

Basic reasons for insolvable conflicts between civilisations and in society are studied. Collective delusions are described that cannot be changed by explanations because they are located in collective unconscious or in communal subconscious. By gaining identity (e.g. radical Islamic identity) information in the communal subconscious along all delusions is automatically transferred to an individual subconscious but a person does not realise it. Deletion of old information in the communal subconscious and addition of new information is also studied and how the process differs in conflict or peace situations. In conflict situations many delusions about opposition are also transferred to the communal subconscious. Both positive and negative aspects of the communal subconscious are studied, thereat bad success and corruption, problems with ideology export and globalisation, essence and role of religion. Human and social insect behaviours are also compared.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcia L. Spetch ◽  
Alinda Friedman ◽  
Quoc Vuong
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth A Murray ◽  
Barry J Richmond

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rankin W. McGugin ◽  
Ana E. Van Gulick ◽  
Isabel Gauthier

The fusiform face area (FFA) is defined by its selectivity for faces. Several studies have shown that the response of FFA to nonface objects can predict behavioral performance for these objects. However, one possible account is that experts pay more attention to objects in their domain of expertise, driving signals up. Here, we show an effect of expertise with nonface objects in FFA that cannot be explained by differential attention to objects of expertise. We explore the relationship between cortical thickness of FFA and face and object recognition using the Cambridge Face Memory Test and Vanderbilt Expertise Test, respectively. We measured cortical thickness in functionally defined regions in a group of men who evidenced functional expertise effects for cars in FFA. Performance with faces and objects together accounted for approximately 40% of the variance in cortical thickness of several FFA patches. Whereas participants with a thicker FFA cortex performed better with vehicles, those with a thinner FFA cortex performed better with faces and living objects. The results point to a domain-general role of FFA in object perception and reveal an interesting double dissociation that does not contrast faces and objects but rather living and nonliving objects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document