CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 409Visual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceMultisensory perception and integration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Functional Impact of Mental Imagery on Conscious Perception

Open access
Pearson, Joel, Clifford, Colin W.G., Tong, Frank·2008·Current Biology
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2008.05.048PMC PMC2519957
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Mental imagery has been proposed to contribute to a variety of high-level cognitive functions, including memory encoding and retrieval, navigation, spatial planning, and even social communication and language comprehension. However, it is debated whether mental imagery relies on the same sensory representations as perception, and if so, what functional consequences such an overlap might have on perception itself. We report novel evidence that single instances of imagery can have a pronounced facilitatory influence on subsequent conscious perception. Either seeing or imagining a specific pattern could strongly bias which of two competing stimuli reach awareness during binocular rivalry. Effects of imagery and perception were location and orientation specific, accumulated in strength over time, and survived an intervening visual task lasting several seconds prior to presentation of the rivalry display. Interestingly, effects of imagery differed from those of feature-based attention. The results demonstrate that imagery, in the absence of any incoming visual signals, leads to the formation of a short-term sensory trace that can bias future perception, suggesting a means by which high-level processes that support imagination and memory retrieval may shape low-level sensory representations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2008.05.048

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 47 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 409

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pearson, J., Clifford, C. W. G., & Tong, F.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Pearson, Joel
ORCID
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
18
Issue
13
Pages
982-986
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cub.2008.05.048
PMC
PMC2519957
OpenAlex
W2170666077
Cited by
409
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (457146)
  • National Institutes of Health (NEI R01 EY017082, R01 EY14202)
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
mental imagery, conscious perception, binocular rivalry, visual awareness, sensory representation, feature-based attention, memory retrieval, perceptual bias
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Imagination, Orientation, Time Factors, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review