Cognitive Penetrability of Perception in the Age of Prediction: Predictive Systems are Penetrable Systems

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 547-569

  Lupyan, Gary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939214796     PISSN: 18785158     EISSN: 18785166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13164-015-0253-4     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Abdel Rahman, R., and W. Sommer. 2008. Seeing what we know and understand: how knowledge shapes perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15(6): 1055–1063. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1055.
2. Adelson, E.H. 1993. Perceptual organization and the judgment of brightness. Science 262(5142): 2042–2044.
3. Ahissar, M., and S. Hochstein. 2004. The reverse hierarchy theory of visual perceptual learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(10): 457–464.
4. Amazeen, E.L., and M.T. Turvey. 1996. Weight perception and the haptic size–weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22(1): 213–232. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.213.
5. Anderson, B. 2011. There is no such thing as attention. Frontiers in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 2: 246. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00246.
6. Anderson, B.L., and J. Winawer. 2005. Image segmentation and lightness perception. Nature 434(7029): 79–83. doi:10.1038/nature03271.
7. Ansorge, U., and S.I. Becker. 2011. Automatic priming of attentional control by relevant colors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0231-6.
8. Barlow, H. 1990. Conditions for versatile learning, Helmholtz’s unconscious inference, and the task of perception. Vision Research 30(11): 1561–1571.
9. Beets, I.A.M., B.M. ’t Hart, F. Rösler, D.Y.P. Henriques, W. Einhäuser, and K. Fiehler. 2010. Online action-to-perception transfer: only percept-dependent action affects perception. Vision Research 50(24): 2633–2641. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.004.
10. Bergson, H. 1911. Matter and memory. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
11. Blake, R., K.V. Sobel, and T.W. James. 2004. Neural synergy between kinetic vision and touch. Psychological Science 15(6): 397–402. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00691.x.
12. Buckingham, G., and M.A. Goodale. 2010. Lifting without seeing: the role of vision in perceiving and acting upon the size weight illusion. PLoS ONE 5(3), e9709. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009709.
13. Bueti, D., and E. Macaluso. 2010. Auditory temporal expectations modulate activity in visual cortex. NeuroImage 51(3): 1168–1183. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.03.023.
14. Bulthoff, I., H. Bulthoff, and P. Sinha. 1998. Top-down influences on stereoscopic depth-perception. Nature Neuroscience 1(3): 254–257.
15. Bybee, J., and McClelland, J. L. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4). doi:10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381.
16. Calvert, G. A., Bullmore, E. T., Brammer, M. J., Campbell, R., Williams, S. C. R., McGuire, P. K., … David, A. S. 1997. Activation of Auditory Cortex During Silent Lipreading. Science, 276(5312): 593–596. doi:10.1126/science.276.5312.593.
17. Carrasco, M., S. Ling, and S. Read. 2004. Attention alters appearance. Nature Neuroscience 7(3): 308–313.
18. Cave, K.R., and N.P. Bichot. 1999. Visuospatial attention: beyond a spotlight model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6(2): 204–223.
19. Changizi, M.A., and W.G. Hall. 2001. Thirst modulates a perception. Perception 30(12): 1489–1497. doi:10.1068/p3266.
20. Chun, M.M., and J.M. Wolfe. 2001. Visual Attention. In Blackwell handbook of perception, ed. B. Goldstein, 272–310. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
21. Churchland, P.M. 1988. Perceptual plasticity and theoretical neutrality: a reply to Jerry Fodor. Philosophy of Science 55(June): 167–87.
22. Clark, A. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3): 181–204.
23. Cohen, L., S. Lehéricy, F. Chochon, C. Lemer, S. Rivaud, and S. Dehaene. 2002. Language‐specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain 125(5): 1054–1069. doi:10.1093/brain/awf094.
24. Çukur, T., S. Nishimoto, A.G. Huth, and J.L. Gallant. 2013. Attention during natural vision warps semantic representation across the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 16(6): 763–770. doi:10.1038/nn.3381.
25. De Fockert, J., J. Davidoff, J. Fagot, C. Parron, and J. Goldstein. 2007. More accurate size contrast judgments in the Ebbinghaus illusion by a remote culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance 33(3): 738–742. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.738.
26. DeLong, K.A., T.P. Urbach, and M. Kutas. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8(8): 1117–1121. doi:10.1038/nn1504.
27. Deroy, O. 2013. Object-sensitivity versus cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Studies 162(1): 87–107. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-9989-1.
28. Dieter, K.C., B. Hu, D.C. Knill, R. Blake, and D. Tadin. 2013. Kinesthesis can make an invisible hand visible. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797613497968.
29. Dikker, S., H. Rabagliati, and L. Pylkkänen. 2009. Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition 110(3): 293–321. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008.
30. Dikker, S., H. Rabagliati, T.A. Farmer, and L. Pylkkänen. 2010. Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science 21(5): 629–634. doi:10.1177/0956797610367751.
31. Dils, A.T., and L. Boroditsky. 2010. Visual motion aftereffect from understanding motion language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 16396–16400. doi:10.1073/pnas.1009438107.
32. Egly, R., J. Driver, and R.D. Rafal. 1994. Shifting visual-attention between objects and locations - evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 123(2): 161–177.
33. Elman, J.L. 2004. An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(7): 301–306. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.003.
34. Elman, J.L., and J.L. McClelland. 1988. Cognitive penetration of the mechanisms of perception - compensation for coarticulation of lexically restored phonemes. Journal of Memory and Language 27(2): 143–165.
35. Estes, Z., M. Verges, and L.W. Barsalou. 2008. Head up, foot down: object words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS 19(2): 93–97. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x.
36. Firestone, C., and B.J. Scholl. 2014. “Top-down” effects where none should be found: the El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science 25(1): 38–46.
37. Flanagan, J.R., J.P. Bittner, and R.S. Johansson. 2008. Experience can change distinct size-weight priors engaged in lifting objects and judging their weights. Current Biology: CB 18(22): 1742–1747. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.09.042.
38. Fodor, J.A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
39. Fodor, J.A. 1984. Observation reconsidered. Philosophy of Science 51: 23–43.
40. Fodor, J.A. 1988. A reply to Churchland’s ‘perceptual plasticity and theoretical neutrality’. Philosophy of Science 55: 188–98.
41. Fontanini, A., and D.B. Katz. 2008. Behavioral states, network states, and sensory response variability. Journal of Neurophysiology 100(3): 1160–1168. doi:10.1152/jn.90592.2008.
42. Franconeri, S.L., A. Hollingworth, and D.J. Simons. 2005. Do new objects capture attention? Psychological Science 16(4): 275–281. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01528.x.
43. Friston, K. 2008. Hierarchical models in the brain. PLoS Comput Biol 4(11), e1000211. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000211.
44. Friston, K. 2010. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(2): 127–138. doi:10.1038/nrn2787.
45. Geisler, W.S., and D. Kersten. 2002. Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nature Neuroscience 5(6): 508–510. doi:10.1038/nn0602-508.
46. Ghose, G.M., and J.H.R. Maunsell. 2002. Attentional modulation in visual cortex depends on task timing. Nature 419(6907): 616–620. doi:10.1038/nature01057.
47. Gick, B., and D. Derrick. 2009. Aero-tactile integration in speech perception. Nature 462(7272): 502–504. doi:10.1038/nature08572.
48. Goldstone, R.L. 1995. Effects of categorization on color-perception. Psychological Science 6(5): 298–304.
49. Gregory, R.L. 1963. Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling. Nature 199(4894): 678–680. doi:10.1038/199678a0.
50. Hansen, T., M. Olkkonen, S. Walter, and K.R. Gegenfurtner. 2006. Memory modulates color appearance. Nature Neuroscience 9(11): 1367–1368. doi:10.1038/nn1794.
51. Hay, J., Nolan, A., and Drager, K. 2006. From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review, 23(3): doi:10.1515/TLR.2006.014.
52. Henrich, J., S.J. Heine, and A. Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3): 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. discussion 83–135.
53. Hochstein, S., and M. Ahissar. 2002. View from the top: hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron 36(5): 791–804.
54. Howe, C.Q., and D. Purves. 2002. Range image statistics can explain the anomalous perception of length. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99(20): 13184–13188. doi:10.1073/pnas.162474299.
55. Howe, C.Q., and D. Purves. 2004. Size contrast and assimilation explained by the statistics of natural scene geometry. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16(1): 90–102. doi:10.1162/089892904322755584.
56. Howe, C.Q., and D. Purves. 2005. The Müller-Lyer illusion explained by the statistics of image–source relationships. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(4): 1234–1239. doi:10.1073/pnas.0409314102.
57. Howe, C.Q., Z. Yang, and D. Purves. 2005. The Poggendorff illusion explained by natural scene geometry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(21): 7707–7712. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502893102.
58. Howe, C.Q., R. Beau Lotto, and D. Purves. 2006. Comparison of Bayesian and empirical ranking approaches to visual perception. Journal of Theoretical Biology 241(4): 866–875. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.01.017.
59. Itti, L., and P. Baldi. 2009. Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vision Research 49(10): 1295–1306. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.09.007.
60. Jack, A.I., G.L. Shulman, A.Z. Snyder, M. McAvoy, and M. Corbetta. 2006. Separate modulations of human V1 associated with spatial attention and task structure. Neuron 51(1): 135–147.
61. James, W. 1890. Principles of psychology Vol. 1. New York: Holt.
62. Jordan, T.R., S.M. Thomas, and K.C. Scott-Brown. 1999. The illusory-letters phenomenon: an illustration of graphemic restoration in visual word recognition. Perception 28(11): 1413–1416.
63. Kanizsa, G. 1979. Organization in vision: essays on gestalt perception. New York: Praeger.
64. Kraft, J.M., and D.H. Brainard. 1999. Mechanisms of color constancy under nearly natural viewing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(1): 307–312.
65. Kreiman, G., I. Fried, and C. Koch. 2002. Single-neuron correlates of subjective vision in the human medial temporal lobe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(12): 8378–8383. doi:10.1073/pnas.072194099.
66. Kutas, M., and S.A. Hillyard. 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 307(5947): 161–163.
67. Landau, A., L. Aziz-Zadeh, and R.B. Ivry. 2010. The influence of language on perception: listening to sentences about faces affects the perception of faces. The Journal of Neuroscience 30(45): 15254–15261. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2046-10.2010.
68. Lee, Y. L., Lupyan, G., Roberts-Kedes, G., Mattar, D., Aguirre, G. K., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2013). Automatic categorization of letter identity in extrastriate visual cortex. Presented at the Human Brain Mapping, Seattle, WA.
69. Levin, D.T., and M.R. Banaji. 2006. Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: the role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 135(4): 501–512. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.501.
70. Lupyan, G. 2007. Reuniting categories, language, and perception. In Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. D.S. McNamara and J.G. Trafton, 1247–1252. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
71. Lupyan, G. 2008. The conceptual grouping effect: categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition 108(2): 566–577.
72. Lupyan, G. (2012a). Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Cognition, 3(54). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054.
73. Lupyan, G. (2012b). What do words do? Towards a theory of language-augmented thought. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 255–297). Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123942937000078.
74. Lupyan, G., and M.J. Spivey. 2008. Perceptual processing is facilitated by ascribing meaning to novel stimuli. Current Biology 18(10): R410–R412.
75. Lupyan, G., and M.J. Spivey. 2010a. Making the invisible visible: auditory cues facilitate visual object detection. PLoS ONE 5(7), e11452. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011452.
76. Lupyan, G., and M.J. Spivey. 2010b. Redundant spoken labels facilitate perception of multiple items. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72(8): 2236–2253. doi:10.3758/APP.72.8.2236.
77. Lupyan, G., and S.L. Thompson-Schill. 2012. The evocative power of words: activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 141(1): 170–186. doi:10.1037/a0024904.
78. Lupyan, G., and E.J. Ward. 2013. Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(35): 14196–14201. doi:10.1073/pnas.1303312110.
79. Lupyan, G., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Swingley, D. (2009). The penetration of visual representations by conceptual categories. In Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society.
80. Lupyan, G., S.L. Thompson-Schill, and D. Swingley. 2010. Conceptual penetration of visual processing. Psychological Science 21(5): 682–691.
81. Lyons, J. 2011. Circularity, reliability, and the cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Issues 21(1): 289–311. doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2011.00205.x.
82. Macpherson, F. 2012. Cognitive penetration of colour experience: rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(1): 24–62. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00481.x.
83. Marr, D. 1982. Vision: a computational approach. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.
84. McCauley, R.N., and J. Henrich. 2006. Susceptibility to the Muller-Lyer Illusion, theory-neutral observation, and the diachronic penetrability of the visual input system. Philosophical Psychology 19(1): 79–101.
85. McClelland, J.L., D. Mirman, and L.L. Holt. 2006. Are there interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(8): 363–369.
86. McGurk, H., and J. MacDonald. 1976. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264(5588): 746–748.
87. Meng, X., and Q. Zaidi. 2011. Visual effects of haptic feedback are large but local. PLoS ONE 6(5), e19877. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019877.
88. Meteyard, L., B. Bahrami, and G. Vigliocco. 2007. Motion detection and motion verbs: language affects low-level visual perception. Psychological Science 18: 1007–1013. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02016.x.
89. Meteyard, L., N. Zokaei, B. Bahrami, and G. Vigliocco. 2008. Visual motion interferes with lexical decision on motion words. Current Biology 18(17): R732–R733. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.016.
90. Moore, C.M., and H. Egeth. 1998. How does feature-based attention affect visual processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 24(4): 1296–310.
91. Niedzielski, N. 1999. The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1): 62–85. doi:10.1177/0261927X99018001005.
92. O’Connor, D.H., M.M. Fukui, M.A. Pinsk, and S. Kastner. 2002. Attention modulates responses in the human lateral geniculate nucleus. Nat Neurosci 5(11): 1203–1209. doi:10.1038/nn957.
93. Oliva, A., and A. Torralba. 2006. Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. Progress in Brain Research 155: 23–36. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(06)55002-2.
94. Oliva, A., and A. Torralba. 2007. The role of context in object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(12): 520–527. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.009.
95. Parker, N.I., and P.L. Newbigging. 1963. Magnitude and decrement of the Müller-Lyer illusion as a function of pre-training. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 17(1): 134–140. doi:10.1037/h0083262.
96. Pasley, B.N., L.C. Mayes, and R.T. Schultz. 2004. Subcortical discrimination of unperceived objects during binocular rivalry. Neuron 42(1): 163–172.
97. Pelekanos, V., and K. Moutoussis. 2011. The effect of language on visual contrast sensitivity. Perception 40(12): 1402–1412. doi:10.1068/p7010.
98. Potter, M.C. 1975. Meaning in visual search. Science (New York, N.Y.) 187(4180): 965–966.
99. Potter, M.C., and L.F. Fox. 2009. Detecting and remembering simultaneous pictures in a rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 35(1): 28–38. doi:10.1037/a0013624.
100. Purves, D., W.T. Wojtach, and R.B. Lotto. 2011. Understanding vision in wholly empirical terms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(Suppl 3): 15588–15595. doi:10.1073/pnas.1012178108.
101. Pylyshyn, Z. 1999. Vision and cognition: how do they connect? Response. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(3): 401–423.
102. Rao, R.P., and D.H. Ballard. 1999. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive field effects. Nature Neuroscience 2: 79–87.
103. Ross, H.E. 1969. When is a weight not illusory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 21(4): 346–355. doi:10.1080/14640746908400230.
104. Rudel, R.G., and H.-L. Teuber. 1963. Decrement of visual and haptic müller-lyer illusion on repeated trials: a study of crossmodal transfer. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 15(2): 125–131. doi:10.1080/17470216308416563.
105. Samuelsen, C.L., M.P.H. Gardner, and A. Fontanini. 2012. Effects of cue-triggered expectation on cortical processing of taste. Neuron 74(2): 410–422. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.031.
106. Sapir, E. 1929. The status of linguistics as a science. Language 5: 207–214.
107. Schultz, G., and R. Meizack. 1991. The Charles Bonnet syndrome: “phantom visual images.”. Perception 20(6): 809–825. doi:10.1068/p200809.
108. Schwitzgebel, E. (2013). Striking Confirmation of the Spelunker Illusion. The Splintered Mind. Retrieved from http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2013/11/striking-confirmation-of-spelunker.html.
109. Selkin, J., and M. Wertheimer. 1957. Disappearance of the mueller-lyer illusion under prolonged inspection. Perceptual and Motor Skills 7(3): 265–266. doi:10.2466/pms.1957.7.3.265.
110. Shams, L., Y. Kamitani, and S. Shimojo. 2002. Visual illusion induced by sound. Cognitive Brain Research 14(1): 147–152.
111. Sheinberg, D.L., and N.K. Logothetis. 1997. The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94(7): 3408–3413.
112. Siegel, S. 2012. Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Noûs 46(2): 201–222.
113. Siegel, S. 2013. The epistemic impact of the etiology of experience. Philosophical Studies 162(3): 697–722. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-0059-5.
114. Smilek, D., M.J. Dixon, and P.M. Merikle. 2006. Revisiting the category effect: the influence of meaning and search strategy on the efficiency of visual search. Brain Research 1080: 73–90.
115. Stokes, D. (2011). Perceiving and desiring: a new look at the cognitive penetrability of experience. Philosophical Studies, 1–16. doi:10.1007/s11098-010-9688-8.
116. Störmer, V.S., J.J. McDonald, and S.A. Hillyard. 2009. Cross-modal cueing of attention alters appearance and early cortical processing of visual stimuli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(52): 22456–22461. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907573106.
117. Strand, E.A. 1999. Uncovering the role of gender stereotypes in speech perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1): 86–100. doi:10.1177/0261927X99018001006.
118. Suzuki, S., and M. Grabowecky. 2003. Attention during adaptation weakens negative afterimages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 29(4): 793–807. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.4.793.
119. Taylor-Clarke, M., S. Kennett, and P. Haggard. 2002. Vision modulates somatosensory cortical processing. Current Biology: CB 12(3): 233–236.
120. Tsuchiya, N., and C. Koch. 2005. Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages. Nat Neurosci 8(8): 1096–1101. doi:10.1038/nn1500.
121. Van Boxtel, J.J.A., N. Tsuchiya, and C. Koch. 2010. Opposing effects of attention and consciousness on afterimages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(19): 8883–8888. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913292107.
122. Veldhuizen, M.G., D. Douglas, K. Aschenbrenner, D.R. Gitelman, and D.M. Small. 2011. The anterior insular cortex represents breaches of taste identity expectation. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 31(41): 14735–14744. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1502-11.2011.
123. Vickery, T.J., L.-W. King, and Y. Jiang. 2005. Setting up the target template in visual search. Journal of Vision 5(1): 81–92. doi:10.1.1.329.5562.
124. Wang, Q.Q., P. Cavanagh, and M. Green. 1994. Familiarity and pop-out in visual-search. Perception & Psychophysics 56(5): 495–500.
125. Watanabe, K., and S. Shimojo. 2001. When sound affects vision: effects of auditory grouping on visual motion perception. Psychological Science 12(2): 109–116.
126. Weiss, Y., E.P. Simoncelli, and E.H. Adelson. 2002. Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nature Neuroscience 5(6): 598–604. doi:10.1038/nn858.
127. Winer, G.A., J.E. Cottrell, V. Gregg, J.S. Fournier, and L.A. Bica. 2002. Fundamentally misunderstanding visual perception. Adults’ belief in visual emissions. The American Psychologist 57(6–7): 417–424.
128. Wolfe, J.M., S.J. Butcher, C. Lee, and M. Hyle. 2003. Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 29(2): 483–502.
129. Yuille, A., and D. Kersten. 2006. Vision as Bayesian inference: analysis by synthesis? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(7): 301–308. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.002.
130. Zelano, C., A. Mohanty, and J.A. Gottfried. 2011. Olfactory predictive codes and stimulus templates in piriform cortex. Neuron 72(1): 178–187. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.010.