24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

incc165

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 3710.4
帖子: 2791
在线: 96.6小时
虫号: 24780225
注册: 2020-12-17
性别: GG
专业: 心理学

[交流] 巴黎西岱大学招收神经科学和认知方向CSC2025博士研究生

法国科学院和巴黎西岱大学神经科学和认知研究中心所长 Waszak教授与中
国家留学基金管理委员会(CSC)联合招收神经科学和认知方向的博士研究生.
阅读下文后有兴趣者可与  yangqing165@hotmail.fr 联系索取在线投递简要操作步骤和研究计划全文

Title:
Relationship of attention and prediction in human cognition and action control

Topic 1: Relationship of prediction and attention
Both prediction and attention are necessary to control behavior. For example, when driving a car, we must predict not only traffic lights and other cars, but we also need to pay attention to non-predicted events such as a pedestrian crossing the road. It is also obvious that prediction and attention are conceptually related, as attention refers to the anticipation of a not entirely specified event, whereas prediction is the anticipation of a particular event. Yet, a systematic investigation of the relationship between attention and prediction is missing. The purpose of this axis is to fill this gab, to study the similarities, differences and combined effects of prediction and visual attention on neuronal activity and perception.

Covert visual attention modulates activity in visual areas (e.g., McAdams and Maunsell 1999; Reynolds et al., 2000; Martinez- Trujillo and Treue, 2002; Williford and Maunsell, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2009; Reynolds and Heeger, 2009; Ruff and Cohen 2014; Luo and Maunsell 2015). This modulation of the neuronal response leads to alterations of the basic visual processes such as an increase of con- trast sensitivity and spatial resolution encoded in the primary visual areas of the cortex (reviews by Carrasco and Yeshurun, 2009; Carrasco, 2011;  Anton-Erxleben and Carrasco, 2013; Carrasco and Bar- bot, 2015).

This is in contrast to predicted stimuli which seem to lead to a de- crease in the neural response in visual areas, at least relative to ac- tivity generated by unpredicted stimuli (see above). That is, while an expected stimulus (attention) will increase the neural response (com- pared to the response to an unexpected stimulus), a predicted stim- ulus (prediction) will decrease the neural response (compared to theresponse to an unpredicted stimulus). Attention and prediction should therefore be manipulated orthogonally to clarify their respective effects on the modulation of visual neuronal activity.

Topic 2: Feature- vs. object-based prediction -Psychophysics: discrimination task
         To truly understand common perceptual and motor representations we also need to know the phenomenological side of the brain activity that represents the comment perceptual and motor code. A central question in this regard is whether the overlap takes place on the feature- or the object-level. Feature integration theory proposes that different properties of the visual input are encoded in separate feature maps and are combined into objects by integrating separate features through spatial attention (Treisman & Gelade, 1980). Experiment 2 investigates whether the prediction of an action’s effect takes place before or after this combination.

Topic 3: Probabilistic ideomotor representations- Psychophysics
The experiments presented thus far concern the question of the content of the common representation
of action and perception and how that content is represented in the brain, that is whether the common code represents features, objects or both, and which areas in the traditional perceptual and motor are involved. However, note that an ideomotor representation, as a future perceptual state, is still a prediction, a bet on the outcome of an action. However, action outcomes are often less than sure, especially when they are newly learned. The question thus arises whether there is actually only one predicted ’future perceptual state’, or whether ideomotor representations are probabilistic, that is, whether several possible outcomes are represented with different degrees of probability.

回复此楼