Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Michael Cohen
Cognitive scientist studying perception and awareness. Asst. Prof at Amherst College. Research Scientist at MIT.
88
Tweetovi
291
Pratim
492
Osobe koje vas prate
Tweetovi
Michael Cohen 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hakwanlau @ibphillips i 2 ostali
good question. i bet you could do that with a single color and just change the hue pretty easily actually. quickly i realized there are a lot of details (speed, size, etc.). but i don't know to be honest, won't we just run right into the inattentional blindness vs amnesia debate?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hakwanlau @ibphillips i 2 ostali
I think would agree that it's much easier said than done and even acknowledge that we have no real way to do it right now (if we ever will is another matter.....my hunch personally is probably not, but I also had a hunch about the P300 that was wrong so.... :-)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 29. sij
will in fact likely make that point, and it's certainly not unreasonable in my mind. Though I just don't know if we can ever generalize no cognition papers more broadly to different paradigms
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @felipedebrigard @hakwanlau
Wait I think you have that backwards. They're claiming PFC IS playing a role EVEN in a no-report paradigm in monkeys.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 29. sij
VERY important paper from Logothetis' group just posted on about decoding consciousness in PFC in monkeys during a no-report paradigm. VERY critical data for current debates in awareness.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 27. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @dlboebinger
YESSSSSSSSSS
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen proslijedio/la je tweet
RuthRosenholtz 23. sij
We experience a rich visual world. However, experiments often demonstrate that we lack the details. How can we make sense of this puzzle, and if we're so bad at the details, how does vision work as well as it does? A new theory:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 23. sij
In 1975, a physicist put his CAT on his paper as a co-author. Why? Because he wrote "we" instead of "I" throughout the manuscript and fixing it back then with a typewriter was too much of a hassle for him.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 20. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hakwanlau @SidKouider
I 100% would NOT say this has changed my broad theoretical views on consciousness. Just changed my views on this one particular ERP component
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VictorLamme @hakwanlau
totally agree the window is open. and totally agree and i may disagree on the possible pivotal (access) role of the parietal lobe. more work to be done!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VictorLamme
Could be "parietal access" since so many attention/WM/decision-making networks are in the parietal lobe. Still could be frontal in my opinion (Fraessle paper shows less, but still significant frontal activation in no-report rivalry experiments)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VictorLamme
Also, wasn't joking before when I said I still definitely lean towards a theory like GNWT. I think the P300/P3b may not be an actual signature of awareness, but my view on information needing to be accessed to be conscious hasn't changed (At least not yet. Maybe future data?!).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VictorLamme
I think the "incidental memory" condition is important so we can objectively verify that people saw the targets. I also think the no mask condition is important because it's very very hard to argue that maybe people weren't aware of targets in the no report condition (Exp 2).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VictorLamme
Nah. Just means the P300/P3b isn't a good signature. I still stand by cognitive theories (like GNWT!). But again, I openly admit, this result was a head scratcher to me :)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 18. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @TrikBek
haha, why the hesitation?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @a_rouxsibilon
haha, why?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @m_the_cohen
Full disclosure: I did not expect that we'd find these results. I personally predicted we'd get a smaller, but still significant, P300/P3b. Definitely a surprising result to me!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @m_the_cohen
When people were aware of stimuli and reporting what they saw, we found a strong P300/P3b. When people were aware of the stimuli but did NOT report what they saw, the P300/P3b disappeared completely.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 17. sij
New paper alert!: Is the P300/P3b a neural signature of perceptual awareness? We combined a visual masking paradigm with a no-report paradigm and found that it is not.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Michael Cohen 9. sij
Ever wonder what an MRI of a Pug's face looks like? Wonder no more! What have we done to these animals!??!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"