Back to search

Article

Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical ones

2016-07-27

Abstract excerpt

<h4>ABSTRACT</h4> Humans often evaluate sensory signals according to their reliability for optimal decision-making. However, how do we evaluate percepts generated in the absence of direct input that are, therefore, completely unreliable? Here, we utilize the phenomenon of filling-in occurring at the physiological blind-spots to compare partially inferred and veridical percepts. Subjects chose between stimuli that...

Topics

Open a Topic to create a Post that cites this publication.

Identifiers and source

Literature Corpus work
aa277c48-628b-59fe-a441-68dee28f99f0
DOI
10.1101/066217
Open publication

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest
Interactive article relationship graphSelect a related publication card to move it into the centre and load its closest explainable connections. Solid lines are source-backed structured connections. Dashed lines are semantic discovery signals and are not scientific evidence.
Humans treat unreliable filled-in percepts as more real than veridical onesDOI 10.1101/066217
Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.