Problems of empirical solutions to the theory-ladenness of observation

Synthese ◽

10.1007/s11229-021-03363-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Themistoklis Pantazakos

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

Epistemological Problem ◽

Common Observation ◽

Choice Testing ◽

Empirical Approaches ◽

Theory Ladenness

AbstractRecent years have seen enticing empirical approaches to solving the epistemological problem of the theory-ladenness of observation. I group these approaches in two categories according to their method of choice: testing and refereeing. I argue that none deliver what friends of theory-neutrality want them to. Testing does not work because both evidence from cognitive neuroscience and perceptual pluralism independently invalidate the existence of a common observation core. Refereeing does not work because it treats theory-ladenness as a kind of superficial, removable bias. Even if such treatment is plausible, there is likely no method to ascertain that effects of this bias are not present. More importantly, evidence from cognitive neuroscience suggests that a deeper, likely irremovable kind of theory-ladenness lies within the perceptual modules.

Download Full-text

Links Between Perception and Production

The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198786825.013.14 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 305-332

Author(s):

Carolyn McGettigan ◽

Pascale Tremblay

Keyword(s):

Speech Perception ◽

Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

Neural Mechanisms ◽

Motor Systems ◽

Motor Theory ◽

Oral Movements ◽

Close Interaction ◽

History Of ◽

Empirical Approaches ◽

Production Mechanisms

Speaking requires learning to map the relationships between oral movements and the resulting acoustical signal, which demands a close interaction between perceptual and motor systems. Though historically seen as distinct, the neural mechanisms controlling speech perception and production mechanisms are now conceptualized as largely interacting and possibly overlapping. This chapter charts the history of theoretical and empirical approaches to the interaction of perception and production, focusing on the Motor Theory of Speech Perception and its later revival within the field of cognitive neuroscience. Including insights from recent advances in neuroscience methods, as well as evidence from aging and patient populations, the chapter offers an up-to-date assessment of the question of how motor and premotor cortices contribute to speech perception.

Download Full-text

Cognitive Penetration and Cognitive Realism

Episteme ◽

10.1017/epi.2021.39 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Majid D. Beni

Keyword(s):

Free Energy ◽

Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

Predictive Coding ◽

Cognitive Penetration ◽

Energy Principle ◽

Free Energy Principle ◽

Cognitive Penetrability ◽

Cognitive Realism ◽

Theory Ladenness

Abstract The paper addresses the issue of theory-ladenness of observation/experimentation. Motivated by a naturalistic reading of Thomas Kuhn's insights into the same topic, I draw on cognitive neuroscience (predictive coding under Free Energy Principle) to scrutinise theory-ladenness. I equate theory-ladenness with the cognitive penetrability of perceptual inferences and argue that strong theory-ladenness prevails only under uncertain circumstances. This understanding of theory-ladenness is in line with Thomas Kuhn's view on the same subject as well as a cognitive version of modest realism rather than downright antirealism.

Download Full-text

Normocentric biases taint cognitive neuroscience and intervention of autism

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18002297 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 42 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Laurent Mottron

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Disability ◽

Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

Social Motivation ◽

Repetitive Behaviors ◽

Restricted Interests ◽

Autistic People

Abstract Stepping away from a normocentric understanding of autism goes beyond questioning the supposed lack of social motivation of autistic people. It evokes subversion of the prevalence of intellectual disability even in non-verbal autism. It also challenges the perceived purposelessness of some restricted interests and repetitive behaviors, and instead interprets them as legitimate exploratory and learning-associated manifestations.

Download Full-text

Cognitive gadgets and cognitive priors

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x19000992 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 42 ◽

Author(s):

Gian Domenico Iannetti ◽

Giorgio Vallortigara

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Neuroscience ◽

Selection Of

Abstract Some of the foundations of Heyes’ radical reasoning seem to be based on a fractional selection of available evidence. Using an ethological perspective, we argue against Heyes’ rapid dismissal of innate cognitive instincts. Heyes’ use of fMRI studies of literacy to claim that culture assembles pieces of mental technology seems an example of incorrect reverse inferences and overlap theories pervasive in cognitive neuroscience.

Download Full-text

Symptom Validity Testing

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2018.novdec03 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 23 (6) ◽

pp. 14-15

Author(s):

Lee H. Ensalada

Keyword(s):

Memory Deficits ◽

Symptom Validity ◽

Sensory Cues ◽

Validity Testing ◽

Symptom Validity Testing ◽

Tunnel Vision ◽

Blurry Vision ◽

The Common ◽

Fatigue Evaluation ◽

Choice Testing

Abstract Symptom validity testing (SVT), also known as forced-choice testing, is a means of assessing the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness. The common feature among these symptoms is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. SVT comprises two elements: a specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared to the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. These tests usually present two alternatives; thus the probability of simply guessing the correct response (equivalent to having no ability at all) is 50%. Thus, scores significantly below chance performance indicate that the sensory cues must have been perceived, but the examinee chose not to report the correct answer—alternative explanations are not apparent. SVT also has the capacity to demonstrate that the examinee performed below the probabilities of chance. Scoring below a norm can be explained by fatigue, evaluation anxiety, inattention, or limited intelligence. Scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deceptions and is evidence of malingering because it provides strong evidence that the examinee received the sensory cues and denied the perception. Even so, malingering must be evaluated from the total clinical context.

Download Full-text

Impairment Questions and Answers

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.1999.julaug02 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 4-4

Keyword(s):

Symptom Validity ◽

Validity Testing ◽

Symptom Validity Testing ◽

Negative Results ◽

Tunnel Vision ◽

Questions And Answers ◽

Blurry Vision ◽

Fatigue Evaluation ◽

Choice Testing ◽

Rule Out

Abstract Symptom validity testing, also known as forced-choice testing, is a way to assess the validity of sensory and memory deficits, including tactile anesthesias, paresthesias, blindness, color blindness, tunnel vision, blurry vision, and deafness—the common feature of which is a claimed inability to perceive or remember a sensory signal. Symptom validity testing comprises two elements: A specific ability is assessed by presenting a large number of items in a multiple-choice format, and then the examinee's performance is compared with the statistical likelihood of success based on chance alone. Scoring below a norm can be explained in many different ways (eg, fatigue, evaluation anxiety, limited intelligence, and so on), but scoring below the probabilities of chance alone most likely indicates deliberate deception. The positive predictive value of the symptom validity technique likely is quite high because there is no alternative explanation to deliberate distortion when performance is below the probability of chance. The sensitivity of this technique is not likely to be good because, as with a thermometer, positive findings indicate that a problem is present, but negative results do not rule out a problem. Although a compelling conclusion is that the examinee who scores below probabilities is deliberately motivated to perform poorly, malingering must be concluded from the total clinical context.

Download Full-text