scholarly journals A dynamical framework to relate perceptual variability with multisensory information processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhumika Thakur ◽  
Abhishek Mukherjee ◽  
Abhijit Sen ◽  
Arpan Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Perceptual Variability ◽  
Multisensory Information

Multisensory information processing.

2015 ◽  
pp. 435-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Spence ◽  
Cristy Ho
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Multisensory Information

Data-Structures for Multisensory Information Processing in an Embodied Machine-Mind

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 726-737
Author(s):  
Romi Banerjee ◽  
Sankar K. Pal
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Data Structures ◽  
Multisensory Information

Language processing is not a race against time

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giosuè Baggio ◽  
Carmelo M. Vicario
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Human Brain ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Cognitive Functions ◽  
Memory Systems ◽  
Language System ◽  
Moderating Factors

AbstractWe agree with Christiansen & Chater (C&C) that language processing and acquisition are tightly constrained by the limits of sensory and memory systems. However, the human brain supports a range of cognitive functions that mitigate the effects of information processing bottlenecks. The language system is partly organised around these moderating factors, not just around restrictions on storage and computation.

Information-processing models of the mind

2018 ◽  
pp. 138-140
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
The Mind

Attachment and Field Dependence: Individual Differences in Information Processing

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Vermigli ◽  
Alessandro Toni
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Field Dependence ◽  
Attachment Styles ◽  
Close Relationships ◽  
Adult Age ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Figure Test ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Measure Field

The present research analyzes the relationship between attachment styles at an adult age and field dependence in order to identify possible individual differences in information processing. The “Experience in Close Relationships” test of Brennan et al. was administered to a sample of 380 individuals (160 males, 220 females), while a subsample of 122 subjects was given the Embedded Figure Test to measure field dependence. Confirming the starting hypothesis, the results have shown that individuals with different attachment styles have a different way of perceiving the figure against the background. Ambivalent and avoidant individuals lie at the two extremes of the same dimension while secure individuals occupy the central part. Significant differences also emerged between males and females.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document