Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26424222›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2015

Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries.

Donald D Hoffman, Manish Singh, Chetan Prakash

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Donald D HoffmanDepartment of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. ddhoff@uci.edu.
Manish SinghDepartment of Psychology and Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Chetan PrakashDepartment of Mathematics, California State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose that selection favors nonveridical perceptions that are tuned to fitness. Current textbooks assert, to the contrary, that perception is useful because, in the normal case, it is veridical. Intuition, both lay and expert, clearly sides with the textbooks. We thus expected that some commentators would reject our proposal and provide counterarguments that could stimulate a productive debate. We are pleased that several commentators did indeed rise to the occasion and have argued against our proposal. We are also pleased that several others found our proposal worth exploring and have offered ways to test it, develop it, and link it more deeply to the history of ideas in the science and philosophy of perception. To both groups of commentators: thank you. Point and counterpoint, backed by data and theory, is the essence of science. We hope that the exchange recorded here will advance the scientific understanding of perception and its evolution. In what follows, we respond to the commentaries in alphabetical order.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionPerceptionPsychological TheoryHumansBayesian inferenceCategorizationParameter estimationPerceptual categorization and identificationVisual perception

Identifiers

PMID26424222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.