The DOI matches its Crossref record; 309 of the 309 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 225 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects
Open accessAbstract
What determines what we see? In contrast to the traditional “modular” understanding of perception, according to which visual processing is encapsulated from higher-level cognition, a tidal wave of recent research alleges that states such as beliefs, desires, emotions, motivations, intentions, and linguistic representations exert direct, top-down influences on what we see. There is a growing consensus that such effects are ubiquitous, and that the distinction between perception and cognition may itself be unsustainable. We argue otherwise: None of these hundreds of studies – either individually or collectively – provides compelling evidence for true top-down effects on perception, or “cognitive penetrability.” In particular, and despite their variety, we suggest that these studies all fall prey to only a handful of pitfalls. And whereas abstract theoretical challenges have failed to resolve this debate in the past, our presentation of these pitfalls is empirically anchored: In each case, we show not only how certain studies could be susceptible to the pitfall (in principle), but also how several alleged top-down effects actually are explained by the pitfall (in practice). Moreover, these pitfalls are perfectly general, with each applying to dozens of other top-down effects. We conclude by extracting the lessons provided by these pitfalls into a checklist that future work could use to convincingly demonstrate top-down effects on visual perception. The discovery of substantive top-down effects of cognition on perception would revolutionize our understanding of how the mind is organized; but without addressing these pitfalls, no such empirical report will license such exciting conclusions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from a shortened version of the paper’s full text (it is longer than we read).
TL;DR
Firestone and Scholl argue that none of the hundreds of reported "top-down" effects of cognition on visual perception provides compelling evidence for genuine cognitive penetrability, because the studies collectively fall prey to a small set of methodological pitfalls. They present six such pitfalls, each anchored in empirical case studies, and offer a checklist for future work.
Key findings
- The authors count "more than 175 papers published since 1995" reporting top-down effects on perception, with a median publication year of 2010 for the empirical papers cited in their review of contemporary effects.
- They identify six pitfalls: (1) an overly confirmatory research strategy (the "El Greco fallacy"), (2) conflating perception with judgment, (3) demand and response bias, (4) low-level stimulus differences, (5) peripheral attentional effects, and (6) memory and recognition.
- In their own replications, effects survived when they should have canceled out if truly perceptual: subjects still picked a darker grayscale patch to match a room after reflecting on an unethical action (Firestone & Scholl 2014b, Experiment 5), and still reported narrower apertures when responding with an aperture (Experiment 2).
- The "moral pop-out effect" replicated with trivial categories: fashion-related words (e.g., "robe," "slippers") and transportation-related words (e.g., "car," "passenger") were more accurately identified than unrelated words, suggesting semantic relatedness/memory rather than morality drives the effect.
- Blurring race-diagnostic information from face stimuli (Firestone & Scholl 2015a) left the lightness difference intact even among observers who judged the faces to be the same race, implicating low-level visual features.
Methods
- Design: a theoretical review and critique, combining conceptual argument with "empirically anchored" case studies that re-test prominent alleged top-down effects.
- Data/sample: the published literature on top-down effects (New Look era through recent work), plus the authors' own replication experiments (e.g., Firestone & Scholl 2014b, 2015a, 2015b).
- Analysis: for each pitfall, the authors show in principle how studies could be susceptible and in practice how specific reported effects are explained by the pitfall, then extract lessons for future research into a six-item checklist.
Limitations
- The authors state that Pitfall 5 (peripheral attentional effects) "is not on the sort of firm empirical footing enjoyed by the other pitfalls," having fewer case studies.
- They acknowledge their claim is "ambitious" given hundreds of reported effects, and note that their presentation covers only effects they "had space to discuss, out of a much larger pool."
- They concede that not all attentional effects need be peripheral, and that attention may interact with perception in "rich and nuanced ways" — a caveat the accompanying commentaries (e.g., Clark, de Haas et al., Lupyan) argue undermines the breadth of the thesis.
- Evident from the text: the paper is a critique rather than new primary data across the full literature, and several of its deflationary explanations rest on the authors' own replication studies rather than independent replication.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
171 Not checked yet · 130 Own interpretation · 48 No basis given · 11 Own result · 1 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We replicated this effect with one small change: Instead of a numerical scale, subjects used a scale of actual grayscale patches to rate the room's brightness.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.1. Case studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the vast majority of reported top-down effects on perception involve only the first sort of test: a hypothesis is proffered that some higher-level state affects what we see, and then such an effect is observed.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1. Pitfall 1: An overly confirmatory research strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In later experiments, we determined the true, nonperceptual, explanation for this effect, involving task demands; see Pitfall 3.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.1. Case studies.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“the follow-up study succeeded: subjects still picked a darker patch to match the room after reflecting on an unethical action (Firestone & Scholl 2014b, Experiment 5).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Firestone & Scholl 2014b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many alleged top-down effects on perception seem explicable by appeal to these sorts of routine judgments.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.2. Other susceptible studies.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies that fail to test such predictions are too numerous to count; essentially, nearly every study falls into this category.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.2. Other susceptible studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One especially telling pattern of results is that many of these effects are found even when no visual stimuli are used at all.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.2. Other susceptible studies.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps no pitfall is as generally applicable as demand and response bias, especially for studies relying entirely on observer reports.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.2. Other susceptible studies.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the demonstration of race-based lightness distortions (Levin & Banaji 2006) is exceptional, insofar as it is one of the only such demos in this large literature.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin & Banaji 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many other topdown effects involve manipulations of the stimuli used across experimental conditions.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4. Pitfall 4: Low-level differences (and amazing demonstrations!)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 95
- It may state two separate claims as one. 81
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the median publication year for the empirical papers cited in section 3 is 2010.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 3.4. Categorization and language
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(As of this writing, we count more than 175 papers published since 1995 reporting such effects; for a list, see http://perception.yale.edu/TopDownPapers.)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 1.1. The new top-down challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We successfully replicated this result, but we also tested it with one critical difference: Instead of adjusting a measuring tape to record subjects' width estimates, the experimenter used two poles that themselves formed an independent and potentially passable aperture.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.1. Case studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many alleged top-down effects on perception live near the border of perception and cognition, where it is not always obvious whether a given cognitive state affects what we see or instead only our inferences or judgments made on the basis of what we see.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2. Pitfall 2: Perception versus judgment
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we contend that judgment-based alternative explanations for topdown effects have been severely underappreciated in recent work.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2. Pitfall 2: Perception versus judgment
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other purported top-down effects that seem similarly explicable include effects on visually estimated weight (Doerrfeld et al. 2012), the estimated looming of spiders (Riskind et al. 1995), and the rated anger in African-American or Arab faces (Maner et al. 2005).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.2. Other susceptible studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Doerrfeld et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Riskind et al. 1995
- Not checked yetcites Maner et al. 2005
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies that manipulate stimuli often do acknowledge the possibility of low-level differences (and on occasion actively attempt to control for them).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4. Pitfall 4: Low-level differences (and amazing demonstrations!)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distinction between perception and judgment is intuitive and uncontroversial in principle, but it is striking just how few discussions of top-down effects on perception even mention judgmental effects as possible alternative explanations.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.3. A lesson for future research.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“similar explanations seem eminently plausible for reported effects of desirability on distance perception (e.g., the estimated distance of feces vs. chocolate; Balcetis & Dunning 2010), of racial identity on faces' perceived lightness (Levin & Banaji 2006), of stereotypes on the identity of weapons and tools (Correll et al. 2015), of tool use on the perceived distance to reachable targets (Witt et”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.2. Other susceptible studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Balcetis & Dunning 2010
- Not checked yetcites Levin & Banaji 2006
- Not checked yetcites Correll et al. 2015
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, so many studies never even mention the possibility of demand-based effects (including several studies mentioned above, e.g., Mitterer et al. 2009;Prinz & Seidel 2012).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.3. A lesson for future research.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mitterer et al. 2009
- Not checked yetcites Prinz & Seidel 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is especially frustrating because assessing demand effects is often easy and cost-free.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.3. A lesson for future research.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This finding is today widely regarded as one of the strongest counterexamples to modularity (e.g., Collins & Olson 2014;Macpherson 2012;Vetter & Newen 2014)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Collins & Olson 2014
- Not checked yetcites Macpherson 2012
- Not checked yetcites Vetter & Newen 2014
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And the Black face has a darker jawline, whereas the White face has darker eyes.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“After blurring, the vast majority of observers asserted that the two faces actually had the same race (or were even the same person).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“You may notice that many of the top-down effects in Figure 2 are caricatured, e.g., with actual luminance differences for positive vs. negative words and smiling vs. frowning faces.This is because when the effects weren't caricatured in this way, readers could not understand the claimsbecause they could not experience the effect!”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, merely considering our six pitfallsuniquely disconfirmatory predictions, judgment, task demands, low-level differences, peripheral attention, and memorywe have covered at least nine times that many empirical reports of top-down effects (and of course that includes only those top-down effects we had space to discuss, out of a much larger pool).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 5. Discussion and conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(For example, the median publication year of the many top-down reports cited in this paperwhich includes New-Look-era reportsis only 2010.)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 5. Discussion and conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It occurs even in the absence of response bias shifts, given that the response criterion c did not change significantly across congruency conditions for both happiness and anger detection”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Baker and Levin found that participants who correctly distinguished the race of the noninverted faces also were more likely to judge that the Black face was darker.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Cognition can affect perception: Restating the evidence of a top-down effect
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“For example, Lupyan and Spivey (2008) found that instructing participants to view the meaningless symbols and as meaningfulrotated numbers 2 and 5improved visual search efficiency.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lupyan and Spivey (2008)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Research conducted in alert animals has long recognized that motivational factors rapidly and profoundly influence neuronal responses at the earliest modality-specific perceptual stages, resulting in increased gain and/or altered tuning curves (McGann 2015).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McGann 2015
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Findings collected across a range of mammalian species have demonstrated tonotopic map remodeling within primary auditory cortex that optimizes the processing of tones paired with rewards or punishers (Weinberger 2004).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Weinberger 2004
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“When an unexpected E traveled across the screen, those tracking the letters were more likely to notice it than those tracking the digits, and this pattern reversed when the unexpected object was its mirror image, a block-letter 3.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Most 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We contend that any apparent top-down effect that falls prey to one or more of these pitfalls would be compromised, in the sense that it could be explained by deflationary, routine, and certainly nonrevolutionary factors.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 3. They are general in scope.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the existence of crossmodal effects has been conclusively established and is common ground for all parties in this discussion.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.4. Cross-modal effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shams et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Sekuler et al. 1997
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Even parts of visual cortex, for example, are involved in imagery (e.g., Kosslyn 2005), recall (e.g., Le Bihan et al. 1993), and reward processing (Vickery et al. 2011)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.2. Descending neural pathways
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kosslyn 2005
- Not checked yetcites Le Bihan et al. 1993
- Not checked yetcites Vickery et al. 2011
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, and despite their variety, we suggest that these studies all fall prey to only a handful of pitfalls.”
- Also stated in: § 4. The six "pitfalls" of top-down effects on perception · hedged
“We suggest that this research falls prey to a set of”
- Also stated in: § 4. The six "pitfalls" of top-down effects on perception · hedged
“1.They are few in number.We suggest that nearly all of the recent literature on top-down effects is susceptible to a surprisingly small group of such pitfalls.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4. The six "pitfalls" of top-down effects on perception · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, such factors are entirely missing from contemporary vision science textbooks (e.g., Blake & Sekuler 2005;Howard & Rogers 2002;Yantis 2013).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 1.1. The new top-down challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blake & Sekuler 2005
- Not checked yetcites Howard & Rogers 2002
- Not checked yetcites Yantis 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of descending neural pathways has been conclusively established many times over, and they are now firmly part of the orthodoxy in our understanding of neural systems.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.2. Descending neural pathways
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and other critiques identified theoretically puzzling moderating variables or reported that many other valuable objects and symbols failed to produce similar results (e.g., Klein et al. 1951;McCurdy 1956).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 3. Contemporary top-down effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Klein et al. 1951
- Not checked yetcites McCurdy 1956
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Closing your eyes (or turning off the lights) changes only the input to perception; it does not change perceptual processing itself.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.1. Changing the processing versus (merely) changing the input
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in our view this strategy essentially misses out on half of the possible decisive evidence.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1. Pitfall 1: An overly confirmatory research strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“holding a wide rod across one's body (Fig. 2E) reportedly makes the distance between two poles (which form a doorway-like aperture) look narrower, as measured by having subjects instruct the experimenter to adjust a measuring tape to visually match the aperture's width.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stefanucci & Geuss 2009
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such changes don't involve any penetration because they don't involve effects of knowledge per se.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.5. Input-driven changes in sensitivity over time
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roughly, today's alleged top-down effects on perception are effects of motivation, action, emotion, categorization, and language.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 3. Contemporary top-down effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the report that reflecting on unethical actions makes the world look darker (Banerjee et al. 2012; Fig. 2O).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Banerjee et al. 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the El Greco fallacy applies to any constant-error distortion that should affect equally the means of reproduction (e.g., canvases, grayscale patches) and the item reproduced (e.g., visual scenes to be painted, bright rooms).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.2. Other susceptible studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The sounds' effects occur”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.4. Cross-modal effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shams et al. 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, experimental hypotheses can be tested in two sorts of ways: Not only should you observe an effect when your theory calls for it, but also you should not observe an effect when your theory demands its absence.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1. Pitfall 1: An overly confirmatory research strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“(Put more generally, the thesis of cognitive impenetrability constrains the information modules can access, but it does not constrain what modules can do with the input they do receive; e.g., Scholl & Leslie 1999.)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.5. Input-driven changes in sensitivity over time
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scholl & Leslie 1999
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the particular theoretical motivations behind these various results are nonuniform, so it will be useful to understand these studies in groups.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 3. Contemporary top-down effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it seems more likely that darker photos (or darker skin tones) seemed more negative to subjects, and that conservatives deemed them more representative (and liberals less representative) for that reasonbecause conservatives think more negatively about Obama than liberals do.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.2. Other susceptible studies.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, another possibility is that subjects only judged the target to be farther, even without a real change in perception.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.1. Case studies.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Subjects judged gray patches to be darker after reading negative (vs. positive) words, and subjects judged words printed in gray ink to be darker if the words were negative (vs. positive), as measured by selecting a darker grayscale patch to match the word's lightness (Meier et al. 2007; Fig. 2G).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.2. Other susceptible studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meier et al. 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“it was reported that accuracy in throwing darts at a target affected subsequent size judgments of the target, which was initially assumed to reflect a perceptual change: Less-accurate throwing led to smaller target-size estimates, as if one's performance perceptually resized the target (Wesp et al. 2004; Fig. 2F).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wesp et al. 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“It has been reported that throwing a heavy ball (rather than a light ball) at a target increases estimates of that target's distance (Witt et al. 2004).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Witt et al. 2004
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the same research group (Wesp & Gasper 2012) replicated the earlier resultbut then ran a follow-up condition in which, before throwing, subjects were told that the darts were faulty and inaccurate.This additional instruction eliminated the correlation between performance and reported size.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wesp & Gasper 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here too is an El Greco fallacy: if, per the first result, reading negative words makes gray patches look darker, then the gray patches from the second result should also have looked darker, and the effects of one should have canceled out the other.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.1.2. Other susceptible studies.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“effective demos can provide especially compelling evidence, and they may often directly rule out the kinds of worries we expressed in discussing the previous two pitfalls (i.e., task demands and postperceptual judgments).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“many subjects explicitly articulated the experimental hypothesis when askedand only those subjects showed the backpack effect (Durgin et al. 2009).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.3. A lesson for future research.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Durgin et al. 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But another explanation is that subjects modified their responses to suit the experimental circumstances, in which a very conspicuous manipulation (a curiously unexplained backpack) was administered before obtaining a single perceptual judgment (regarding the hill's slant).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.1. Case studies.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although demand effects can be mitigated by nontransparent manipulations or indirect measures, they can also often be assessed by simply asking the subjects about the experimentfor example, during a careful postexperiment debriefing.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.3. A lesson for future research.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In light of recent findings concerning task demands in studies of top-down effects on perception (especially Durgin et al. 2009), it is no longer possible to provide compelling evidence for a top-down effect on perception without considering the experiment's social context.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.3. A lesson for future research.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Durgin et al. 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we contend that such low-level differences are even more pervasive and problematic than has been realized, and that simple experimental designs can reveal when such differences are responsible for apparent top-down effects.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4. Pitfall 4: Low-level differences (and amazing demonstrations!)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a report that Black (i.e., African-American) faces look darker than White (i.e., Caucasian) faces, even when matched for mean luminance, as in Figure 3A (Levin & Banaji 2006).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin & Banaji 2006
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we contend that claims of top-down effects (especially in studies using transparent manipulations) can no longer be credible without at least asking aboutand reportingsubjects' beliefs about the experiment.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.3. A lesson for future research.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“A follow-up study (Durgin et al. 2011a) tested these possibilities directly and found that slightly changing the instructions so that the challenge was to hit the gift card directly (rather than land closest) led subjects to throw the beanbag farther”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Durgin et al. 2011a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“it has been reported that, when subjects can win a gift card taped to the ground if they throw a beanbag closer to the gift card than their peers do, subjects undershoot the gift card if it is worth $25 but not if it is worth $0suggesting (to the original authors) that more desirable objects look closer (Balcetis & Dunning 2010; Fig. 2P).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Balcetis & Dunning 2010
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Vision experiments occur in a variety of controlled environments (including the laboratory), but any such environment is also inevitably a social environment”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.3. Pitfall 3: Demand and response bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“knowledge of an object's typical color (e.g., that bananas are yellow) reportedly influences that object's perceived color, such that a grayscale image of a banana is judged to be more than 20% yellow (Hansen et al. 2006;Olkkonen et al. 2008)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hansen et al. 2006
- Not checked yetcites Olkkonen et al. 2008
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, it's not that the relevant studies attempted to address these pitfalls but failed; rather, it's that they seem never to have considered most of the pitfalls in the first place.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 5.2. A checklist for future work
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a close examination of the face stimuli in Figure 3A suggests that the Black face seems to be under illumination, whereas the White face doesn't look particularly illuminated or shinya difference that has long been known to influence perceived lightness (Adelson 2000;Gilchrist & Jacobsen 1984).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adelson 2000
- Not checked yetcites Gilchrist & Jacobsen 1984
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“reports that categorical differences facilitate visual search with line drawings of animals and artifactse.g., with faster and more efficient searches for animals among artifacts, and vice versa (Levin et al. 2001).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, dogs are also more geometrically similar to each other than they are to shoes (for example, the shoe images were shorter, wider, and differently oriented than the dog images; Fig. 2L), and size contrast may instead be influenced by such geometric similarity.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.4.2. Other susceptible studies.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“And this is to say nothing of attentional effects on other visual propertiessuch as the fact that voluntary attention perceptually darkens transparent surfaces (Tse 2005), which could explain the increase in perceived transparency among thirsty observers (Changizi & Hall 2001; Fig. 2B) if nonthirsty observers simply paid more attention during the task (being less distracted by their thirst).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.5.2. Other susceptible studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tse 2005
- Not checked yetcites Changizi & Hall 2001
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That visual attention may be both necessary and sufficient for such effects suggests that apparent effects of action on perception may reduce to more routine and wellknown interactions between attention and perception.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.5.1. Case studies.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, given this prominence in theoretical discussions of top-down effects, it is curious that attention is almost never empirically explored in this literaturecurious especially given that such effects are often straightforwardly testable.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.5.1. Case studies.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, findings suggesting that attended items can be seen as larger (Anton-Erxleben et al. 2007) immediately challenge the interpretation of nearly every alleged top-down effect on size perception, including reported effects of throwing performance on perceived target size (e.g., Cañal-Bruland et al. 2010; Fig. 2F), of balance on the perceived size of a walkable beam (Geuss et al. 2010), of”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.5.2. Other susceptible studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Anton-Erxleben et al. 2007
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In another example, hungry subjects more accurately identified briefly presented food-related words relative to subjects who were not hungry (Radel & Clément-Guillotin 2012); but if hungry subjects were simply thinking about food more than nonhungry subjects were, then it is no surprise that they better recognized words related to what they were thinking about, having activated the relevant”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.6. Pitfall 6: Memory and recognition
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Radel & Clément-Guillotin 2012
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, switches in the Necker cube's interpretation are driven by changes in which corner of the cube is attended (Peterson & Gibson 1991;Toppino 2003), and the same has been found for other ambiguous figures (for a review, see Long & Toppino 2004).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.5.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peterson & Gibson 1991
- Not checked yetcites Toppino 2003
- Not checked yetcites Long & Toppino 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, in similar contexts, the prevention of such labeling by verbal shadowing impairs subjects' ability to notice changes to objects' identities (e.g., a Coke bottle changing into a cardboard box) but not to their spatial configuration (e.g., a Coke bottle moving from one location in the scene to another), suggesting that the work done by such labels is to enhance contentful memories rather”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.6. Pitfall 6: Memory and recognition
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simons 1996
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Under these conditions, the label advantage disappeared, suggesting that memory was the culprit all along.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.6. Pitfall 6: Memory and recognition
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Klemfuss et al. (2012)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that relatedness is the key factor in such effects, and thus that memory, not perception, improves detection of words related to morality.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.6. Pitfall 6: Memory and recognition
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, it is striking how many recent studies of recognition (including nearly all of those mentioned in sect.4.6) do not even acknowledge that such an interpretation is important or interesting.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.6.3. A lesson for future research.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, these recent discussions happily agree that, to be compelling, top-down effects must not merely operate through attention.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.5.1. Case studies.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Collins & Olson 2014
- Not checked yetcites Vetter & Newen 2014
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that case, it could be that the moral words simply primed each other and were easier to recognize for that reason rather than because of anything special about morality.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.6. Pitfall 6: Memory and recognition
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Any kind of information the sensory organs receive is meaningless because there is no inherent meaning in sensory information without experience and knowledge (Proulx 2011)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Proulx 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, behavior is multiply determined by cognitive processes.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But if unconscious inference plays a role in perception, as it certainly does even in the perception of a red object, then there must be some role of recognition and judgment even for low-level perception.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, perception is not a unitary construct but is composed of multiple components.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If it turns out, for example, that reported effects of desires on perceived size are explained simply by increased attention to the desired object, then such an effect will go from being a revolutionary discovery about the nature of perception to being simply a demonstration that people pay attention to objects they like.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 5.2. A checklist for future work
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The argument made by Emberson and Amso (2012) is not that one can find activity in perceptual systems as evidence for a top-down effect but rather that changes in visual percepts arise from activity in learning and memory systems.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Emberson and Amso (2012)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Levin and Banaji (2006) report several other experiments with similar conclusions.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin and Banaji (2006)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“After perceptual input reaches the retina, multiple brain regions operate on the inputselecting the significant from the mundane (Lim et al. 2009), often by emotion (Anderson & Phelps 2001) or motivation (Egner & Hirsch 2005), and some via top-down re-entrant processes (Gilbert & Li 2013)to construct perceptual experience.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lim et al. 2009
- Not checked yetcites Anderson & Phelps 2001
- Not checked yetcites Egner & Hirsch 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“there is evidence that long-term users of such devices who once had vision (who had acquired blindness) have visual imagery that is evoked immediately by the sounds they hear with a device, and therefore express that they have the perception of sight (Ward & Meijer 2010).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ward & Meijer 2010
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, from the beginning, New Look proponents faced similar criticisms.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 5.1. Vague theoretical objections and Australian stepbrothers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bruner and Goodman (1947)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although some connections between the senses appear to be direct and low-level (Meredith & Stein 1986)”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meredith & Stein 1986
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“others certainly are the product of learning and experience (Proulx et al. 2014).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Proulx et al. 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though many alternative conceptions of what perception is and how it works have deep theoretical foundations and motivations, we suspect that the primary fuel for such alternative conceptions is simply the presence of so many empirical reports of top-down influences on perceptionespecially in the tidal wave of such effects appearing over the last two decades.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 5. Discussion and conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“None of these other experiments involve subjectively appreciable demonstrations, however”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin and Banaji (2006)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“because the observers were explicitly told that the study was about”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 2.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin and Banaji (2006)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Crossmodal perception is the norm, rather than the exception”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ghazanfar & Schroeder 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Sensory substitution devices allow someone with a damaged sensory modality (such as the visual system for the visually impaired) to receive the missing information by transforming it into a format that another intact sensory modality (such as the auditory [Meijer 1992] or somatosensory system [Bach-y-Rita & Kercel 2003]) can process.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meijer 1992
- Not checked yetcites Bach-y-Rita & Kercel 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Accordingly, we do not think morality is modular, either (Van Bavel et al. 2015).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Bavel et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“If brains resonate with the similarity of motor and affective states (Niedenthal et al. 2010), bodily actions may behave as affectively polarized primes that preactivate the representations of emotionally related facial features, thus facilitating the encoding of features belonging to the same, rather than to a different, valence domain.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Niedenthal et al. 2010
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attention is often inextricably intertwined with perception, and it is deployed not only to spatial regions, but also to sensory dimensions, learned dimensions, and learned complex configurations.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Despite being commonly conceived as subjective, expressive qualities are phenomenally objective (i.e., perceived as belonging to the object; Köhler 1929;1938) and show a remarkablethough not exclusivedependence on configural stimulus properties.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Köhler 1929
- Not checked yetcites [1938]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These recurrent connections are particularly important when processing degraded inputs, and they serve to strengthen weak bottom-up signals (Wyatte et al. 2012).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wyatte et al. 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The existence of categorical perception (Goldstone & Hendrickson 2010) seems to contradict F&S.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldstone & Hendrickson 2010
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, it is trivially true that semantic memory plays some role in the moral popout effect (how else would our participants know words like kill and die), yet this does not rule out that the motivational relevance of morality (or any motivationally relevant construct) boosts related content to awareness.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, with training, dimensions that were originally fused can become more perceptually separated (Goldstone & Steyvers 2001), and once this occurs, it becomes possible for attention to select the separate dimensions.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldstone & Steyvers 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Perceptual changes affect what can be attended, and attention affects what is perceptually learned (Shiu & Pashler 1992).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shiu & Pashler 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem with generalizing this kind of account is that attention influences perceptual processes at many stages and sometimes with a high degree of specificity.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suspect that moral words are not explicitly encoded in semantic memory as moral terms or as having significant overlapping content.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Categorical perception can be acquired during individual experience (Beale & Keil 1995), and it constitutes a paradigmatic case of observer-dependent, familiarity-mediated sensitivity change.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beale & Keil 1995
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, our evidence challenges the bold claim that cognition does not affect perception, supports a circumscribed penetrability of affective perception, and suggests indirect affective priming as a candidate mechanism by which observer's states mold perceptual properties experienced as phenomenally objective and yet loaded with meaning.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the wide range of attentional effectsfrom centrally oriented modulations of percept selection, to adjustments of gain to certain features, to the extreme case of head-turningthe boundary between peripheral attention shifts and changes to perception is entirely unclear and potentially artificial.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our studies challenge any bold claim against penetrability of perception and suggest that perceptual theory can benefit from demonstrations of howunder controlled circumstancesobserver's states can mold expressive qualities.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Bioenergetic scaling of walkable distances.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At the pinnacle of the hierarchy we find anterior IT”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ito et al. 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, inputs originating at the prefrontal cortex reach first the IT cortex; some outputs from the IT cortex reach V1 directly and some reach it via the V4→V2→V1 route (Gilbert & Wu 2013).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gilbert & Wu 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Athletes, musicians, coaches, doctors, and gourmets are all familiar with engaging in training methods for improving their own perceptual performances (Goldstone et al. 2015).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Penetrability of perceived facial expressions.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldstone et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When we see a face, for example, we perceive it as an integrated whole, but at the same time we are consciously aware of all of the minute spatial elements that make up that face.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From these preintegration response patterns, information converges in successive hierarchical stages, from V1 orientation-selective cells through downstream cortical areas V2, V4, and the inferotemporal cortex (IT).This successive convergence results in cells having increasingly large receptive fields (RFs) that cannot encode spatial details but may be selective to global features such as size, or”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those details are perceived instantaneously and in parallel.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Almost all top-down information reaches V1 via layer 1 (see summary Fig. 1 in Gur & Snodderly 2008), where the spatial extent of its synaptic connectivity is rather spread out (Rockland 1994).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gur & Snodderly 2008
- Not checked yetcites Rockland 1994
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also note that the perceptual ability to transform individual spatial elements into holistic objects is instantaneous and parallelwhich argues for a feed-forward, encapsulated perception.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Modern neuroanatomy reveals that the brain is better understood as one large, interconnected network of neurons, bathed in a chemical system, that can be parsed as a set of broadly distributed, dynamically changing, interacting systems”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marder 2012
- Not checked yetcites Sporns 2011
- Not checked yetcites van den Heuvel & Sporns 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in the visual cortex, objects in their full details are represented by V1 response patterns while the global information for each object that is required for comparing the acute image to its stored prototype (”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These systems are domain general: Their interactions constitute mental phenomena that we consider distinct, such as perception, cognition, emotion, and action”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Anderson 2014
- Not checked yetcites Barrett 2009
- Not checked yetcites Pessoa 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that top-down influences typically drive perception, and are constrained or corrected by incoming sensory inputs, rather than the other way around.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These assumptions, and the conclusion they support, are untenable given the considerable neuroscientific evidence that processing in the human brain is distributed, active, and exquisitely sensitive to context.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“About 10%-30% of individuals who suffer from a severe visual impairment, such as glaucoma, experience Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS; Schultz et al. 1996;Vukicevic & Fitzmaurice 2008).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Hallucinations and mental imagery demonstrate top-down effects on visual perception
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schultz et al. 1996
- Not checked yetcites Vukicevic & Fitzmaurice 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seemingly distinct mental phenomena are implemented as dynamic brain states, not as individual, static mental organs”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These examples show that top-down cognitive processes are not only able to penetrate visual perceptions, but also they can cause them.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Hallucinations and mental imagery demonstrate top-down effects on visual perception
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Levin and Banaji (2006) demonstrated that participants seem to perceive Black faces to be darker than White faces.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Cognition can affect perception: Restating the evidence of a top-down effect
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levin and Banaji (2006)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, we argue that F&S apply unjustified level of skepticism about top-down effects relative to other broad hypotheses about the sources of perceptual intelligence.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Cognition can affect perception: Restating the evidence of a top-down effect
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, pure visual hallucinations are also possible and are associated with hyperconnectivity between the amygdala and the visual cortex (Ford et al. 2015), underscoring the role of top-down feedback in their formation.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Hallucinations and mental imagery demonstrate top-down effects on visual perception
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ford et al. 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Capacity limits of cognition are different from those of perception, and as humans, we are restricted to representing links between four variables (a quaternary relationship) or fewer in a single cognitive representation”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Halford et al. 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this commentary, we present two examples where perception is not only influenced by, but also in fact driven by, top-down effects: hallucinations and mental imagery.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Hallucinations and mental imagery demonstrate top-down effects on visual perception
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the main thrust of their critique is based on folk categories of perception and cognition as reified in a modular, reactive, and context-insensitive brain.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In discussing their “El Greco” fallacy, F&S implicitly assume that top-down effects would uniformly influence all elements in a visual field.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Moshe Gur
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A top-down effect that can be partially ascribed to memory does not mean it is not (also) an effect on perception, because part of what we call memoryvisual memoryappears to have a perceptual locus (D'Esposito & Postle 2015;Pratte & Tong 2014).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites D'Esposito & Postle 2015
- Not checked yetcites Pratte & Tong 2014
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These studies show that expectations and knowledge affect virtually all aspects of visual perception.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of those assumptions are wrong.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual memory is not a back-end system, as F&S assume.It is perceptual.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Color knowledge affects color appearance of images (Hansen et al. 2006) and even color afterimages (Lupyan 2015b).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hansen et al. 2006
- Not checked yetcites Lupyan 2015b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is quite possibleindeed it seems likelythat static distinctions between perception, cognition, and emotion reflect much more about historical intellectual biases in the field of cognitive science than about the true operations of the brain/mind.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Gary Lupyan
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, one can perfectly well individuate a system in terms of what it does (e.g., what computations it performs) regardless of whether the operations of the system are sensitive to information from outside.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > N O T E
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I agree that early vision is cognitively impenetrable because there are no direct cognitive effects on early vision.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, it is in virtue of stable bottom-up models that one can begin to understand how top-down effects modulate visual processing.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > N O T E
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is, however, substantial neuropsychological evidence that late vision and, hence, the percept is directly cognitively penetrated because the perceptual processes of late vision use cognitive information as a resource and, thus, cognition modulates the processes of late vision.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Raftopoulos 2009
- Not checked yetcites Raftopoulos 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Late vision is the stage in which the percept is constructed.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To this aim, attention enhances the activity of neurons in the cortical regions that encode the stimuli that most likely contain information relevant to the testing of the hypothesis.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Attention enhances the activity of neurons in the cortical regions that encode the attended stimuli.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The aim of this interplay is to enable perceivers to respond and eventually adapt their responses as they interact with the environment so that this interaction be successful.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Peripheral attention selects the input to perception but does not affect how the processing operates (ibid, sect.4.5.1, para.1).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ibid, sect.4.5.1, para.1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The investigation of top-down effects on perception requires a rigorous definition of what qualifies as perceptual to begin with.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > What draws the line between perception and cognition?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The timing of these cognitive effects places them within late vision but outside early vision, which means that late vision, but not early vision, is affected directly by cognition.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The N2 is elicited about 200-300 ms after stimulus onset in monkeys and humans, in the area V4 and in the inferotemporal cortex.
In the paper
“Clark (2013) argues that to perceive the world is to use what you know to explain away the sensory signal across multiple spatial and temporal scales; the process of perception is inseparable from cognitive processes.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clark 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are several ways cognition affects late vision, such as the application of concepts on some output of early vision so that hypotheses concerning the identities of distal objects can be formed and tested in order for the objects to be categorized and identified.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Success in such an endeavor relies on inferring correctly (or nearly so) the nature of the source of the incoming signal from the signal itself.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, N2 is considered to be a component of cognitively driven or sustained attention.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cognitively driven direct attentional effects within late vision contribute to testing hypotheses concerning the putative distal causes of the sensory data encoded in the lower neuronal assemblies in the visual processing hierarchy.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Accordingly, the authors correctly conclude that when perceptual behavior is explained by invoking the role of peripheral attention, even if peripheral attention is guided by cognitive states, that does not entail perception being cognitively penetrated, a view also shared by the majority of philosophers (Zeimbekis & Raftopoulos 2015).”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zeimbekis & Raftopoulos 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas Firestone & Scholl's (F&S's) phenomenological demarcation of perception from cognition appeals to intuition, we argue that the dividing line is best attained at the functional level.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > What draws the line between perception and cognition?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research suggests that cognitively driven spatial and object/feature-centered attention, as expressed by the N2 Event Related Potential (ERP) component, affects perceptual processing.”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > Athanassios Raftopoulos
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chelazzi et al. 1993
- Not checked yetcites Luck 1995
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The set of studies reporting top-down effects that the authors review is representative of all such studies.
“we count more than 175 papers published since 1995 reporting such effects”
“None of these hundreds of studieseither individually or collectivelyprovides compelling evidence for true top-down effects on perception”
The paper relies on this without support.
The six pitfalls reviewed are the primary alternative explanations for reported top-down effects, and the literature review is comprehensive enough to support the claim that no alleged top-down effect has met these challenges.
“It is our view that no alleged top-down effect of cognition on perception has so far successfully met the challenges collectively embodied by the pitfalls we have reviewed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The studies cited as evidence for the pitfalls are methodologically sound and their findings are reliable.
“for each alternative explanation we have offered here, we reviewed multiple case studies suggesting not only that it could matter (in principle), but also that it actually does matter (in practice)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The hippocampus is one of the few regions of the brain that has not been found to subserve multiple functions, despite intense study for decades.
“The hippocampus is one of the few regions of the brain that has not been found to subserve multiple”
The paper relies on this without support.
Category priming is more likely when terms are explicitly identifiable as being in the same category or at least as having multiple overlapping semantic features.
“Category priming is more likely when the terms are explicitly identifiable as being in the same category or at least as having multiple overlapping semantic features (e.g., pilot, airport).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Any observed behavior can be explained by multiple processes intervening between perceptual input and motor response.
“Any observed behavior can be explained by multiple processes intervening between perceptual input and motor response.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A single process rarely explains any behavior, and possible explanations are not always mutually exclusive.
“A single process rarely explains any behavior, and possible explanations are not always mutually exclusive.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The visual system consists of a proprietary set of mechanisms specialized for the analysis of signals originating from the retina.
“One can characterize the visual system as the set of brain mechanisms specialized for the analysis of signals originating from the retina.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Late vision is the stage in which the percept is constructed.
“late vision, the latter being the stage in which the percept is constructed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Attention enhances the activity of neurons in the cortical regions that encode the attended stimuli.
“Attention is thought to enhance the activity of neurons in the cortical regions that encode the attended stimuli.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The N2 is elicited about 200-300 ms after stimulus onset in monkeys and humans, in the area V4 and in the inferotemporal cortex.
“The N2 is elicited about 200-300 ms after stimulus onset in monkeys and humans, in the area V4 and in the inferotemporal cortex.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Previous studies have shown perceptual biases with uninformative cues (i.e., mere suggestions) across a range of tasks (27), even in judgments of elementary visual properties like color (28).”
From Social information creates self-fulfilling prophecies in judgments of pain, vicarious pain, and cognitive effort (2026) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Similarly, humans are unreliable guides to their own inner workings: they are often overconfident in their explanatory knowledge (Rozenblit & Keil, 2002) and have little access to the mechanisms underlying some of their psychology (e.g., perception, see Firestone & Scholl, 2016).”
From Exploring the psychology of LLMs’ moral and legal reasoning (2024) · cites this paper as Firestone & Scholl, 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.1. Case studies.
“Less-accurate throwing led to smaller target-size estimates, as if one's performance perceptually resized the target”
§ Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for "top-down" effects > 4.2.2. Other susceptible studies.
“Subjects who performed poorly while clinging to the rock-climbing wall had an obvious explanation for performing poorly and so had no need to explain their misses by inflating target-size estimates.”
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
de Haas, B., Schwarzkopf, D. S., Anderson, E. J., & Rees, G. E. (2014) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.061 · Cited by 67
RetractedA spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 · Cited by 8,141
Fodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science
Clark, A. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000477 · Cited by 5,924
Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p281059 · Cited by 3,181
Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031564 · Cited by 2,974
Matthei, E. H. (1984) · Language · doi:10.2307/413815 · Cited by 2,189
Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load
Lavie, N. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004 · Cited by 2,102
Bruner, J. S. (1957) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043805 · Cited by 2,086
Handbuch der physiologischen Optik
Helmholtz, H. L. F. (2011) · DFG Viewer (DFG Viewer) · Cited by 1,947
Interoceptive predictions in the brain
Barrett, L. F., & Simmons, W. K. (2015) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3950 · Cited by 1,766
The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory
D'Esposito, M., & Postle, B. R. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015031 · Cited by 1,653
Neural Mechanisms for Interacting with a World Full of Action Choices
Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2010) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135409 · Cited by 1,543
Is neocortex essentially multisensory?
GHAZANFAR, A., & SCHROEDER, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.008 · Cited by 1,463
Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing.
Warren, W. H. (1984) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.683 · Cited by 1,301
Is vision continuous with cognition?: The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x99002022 · Cited by 1,274
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35048669 · Cited by 1,262
Top-down influences on visual processing
Gilbert, C. D., & Li, W. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3476 · Cited by 1,224
Selective gating of visual signals by microstimulation of frontal cortex
Moore, T., & Armstrong, K. M. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01341 · Cited by 1,194
Population receptive field estimates in human visual cortex
Dumoulin, S. O., & Wandell, B. A. (2007) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.034 · Cited by 1,183
Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision
Newsome, W. T., Britten, K. H., & Movshon, J. A. (1989) · Nature · doi:10.1038/341052a0 · Cited by 1,177
Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00075506 · Cited by 1,158
Value and need as organizing factors in perception.
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947) · Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0058484 · Cited by 1,138
Carrasco, M., Ling, S., & Read, S. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1194 · Cited by 1,126
Perceptual causality and animacy
Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01506-0 · Cited by 1,104
Self-citationIntegrated model of visual processing
Bullier, J. (2001) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(01)00085-6 · Cited by 1,016
Objects and attention: the state of the art
Scholl, B. J. (2001) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00152-9 · Cited by 981
Self-citationActivity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry
Leopold, D., & Logothetis, N. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/379549a0 · Cited by 961
Driver, J., & Noesselt, T. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.12.013 · Cited by 940
Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Dual-Process Theories of the Mind.
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553 · Cited by 913
(1983) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 909
An experimental system for auditory image representations
Meijer, P. B. L. (1992) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/10.121642 · Cited by 900
Fast Readout of Object Identity from Macaque Inferior Temporal Cortex
Hung, C. P., Kreiman, G., Poggio, T., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1117593 · Cited by 854
Long-range and local circuits for top-down modulation of visual cortex processing
Zhang, S., Xu, M., Kamigaki, T., Hoang Do, J. P., Chang, W.-C., Jenvay, S., Miyamichi, K., Luo, L., & Dan, Y. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1254126 · Cited by 804
Less Is More: Expectation Sharpens Representations in the Primary Visual Cortex
Kok, P., Jehee, J. F. M., & de Lange, F. P. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034 · Cited by 798
Gregory, R. L. (1980) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1980.0090 · Cited by 789
Fast Backprojections from the Motion to the Primary Visual Area Necessary for Visual Awareness
Pascual-Leone, A., & Walsh, V. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1057099 · Cited by 761
Attention modulates responses in the human lateral geniculate nucleus
O’Connor, D. H., Fukui, M. M., Pinsk, M. A., & Kästner, S. (2002) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn957 · Cited by 760
The Role of Area 17 in Visual Imagery: Convergent Evidence from PET and rTMS
Kosslyn, S. M., Pascual‐Leone, Á., Félician, O., Camposano, S. E., Keenan, J. P., L., W., Thompson, Ganis, G., Sukel, K. E., & Alpert, N. M. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5411.167 · Cited by 756
Embodied Perception and the Economy of Action
Proffitt, D. R. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00008.x · Cited by 696
Sound alters visual motion perception
Sekuler, R., Sekuler, A. B., & Lau, R. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/385308a0 · Cited by 695
An initial evaluation of the functions of human olfaction
Stevenson, R. J. (2010) · Chemical Senses · doi:10.1093/chemse/bjp083 · Cited by 689
Comparing families of dynamic causal models
Penny, W. D., Stephan, K. E., Daunizeau, J., Rosa, M. J., Friston, K. J., Schofield, T. M., & Leff, A. P. (2010) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000709 · Cited by 688
Perception of shape from shading
Ramachandran, V. S. (1988) · Nature · doi:10.1038/331163a0 · Cited by 687
Effects of Direct and Averted Gaze on the Perception of Facially Communicated Emotion.
Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2005) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.3 · Cited by 685
Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981)
Turvey, M. T., Shaw, R. E., Reed, E. S., & Mace, W. M. (1981) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90002-0 · Cited by 679
Visual illusion induced by sound
Shams, L. B., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2002) · Cognitive Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00069-1 · Cited by 678
See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612 · Cited by 649
Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception.
Bhalla, M., & Proffítt, D. R. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.25.4.1076 · Cited by 647
A new look at the new look: Perceptual defense and vigilance.
Erdelyi, M. H. (1974) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0035852 · Cited by 647
Neuronal Correlates of Subjective Visual Perception
Logothetis, N. K., & Schall, J. D. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2772635 · Cited by 636
The Role of Effort in Perceiving Distance
Proffítt, D. R., Stefanucci, J. K., Banton, T. A., & EPSTEIN, W. M. (2003) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01427 · Cited by 565
What You See Is What You Set: Sustained Inattentional Blindness and the Capture of Awareness.
Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E. R., & Simons, D. J. (2005) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.112.1.217 · Cited by 554
Self-citationLinguistically Modulated Perception and Cognition: The Label-Feedback Hypothesis
Lupyan, G. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054 · Cited by 542
Neural Mechanisms of Object-Based Attention
Baldauf, D., & Desimone, R. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1247003 · Cited by 536
Modularity, Development and ‘Theory of Mind’
Scholl, B. J., & Leslie, A. M. (1999) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00106 · Cited by 532
Self-citationHow MT cells analyze the motion of visual patterns
Rust, N. C., Mante, V., Simoncelli, E. P., & Movshon, J. A. (2006) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1786 · Cited by 516
Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception.
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B., Neuberg, S. L., Delton, A. W., Butner, J., & Schaller, M. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.63 · Cited by 511
Memory modulates color appearance
Hansen, T., Olkkonen, M., Walter, S., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2006) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1794 · Cited by 510
Cognitive Penetration of Colour Experience: Rethinking the Issue in Light of an Indirect Mechanism
Macpherson, F. (2011) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00481.x · Cited by 465
Reuniting perception and conception
Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00047-4 · Cited by 457
Tool Use Affects Perceived Distance, But Only When You Intend to Use It.
Witt, J. K., Proffítt, D. R., & EPSTEIN, W. M. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.880 · Cited by 436
Visual–motor recalibration in geographical slant perception.
Bhalla, M., & Proffítt, D. R. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1076 · Cited by 434
Magnocellular Projections as the Trigger of Top-Down Facilitation in Recognition
Kveraga, K., Boshyan, J., & Bar, M. (2007) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3481-07.2007 · Cited by 429
Fodor, J. A. (1984) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/289162 · Cited by 421
Graham, K. S., Barense, M. D., & Lee, A. C. H. (2010) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.001 · Cited by 404
The statistical determinants of adaptation rate in human reaching
Burge, J., Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2008) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/8.4.20 · Cited by 400
Emotion and perception: the role of affective information
Zadra, J. R., & Clore, G. L. (2011) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.147 · Cited by 397
Kosslyn, S. M. (2004) · Cognitive Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/02643290442000130 · Cited by 386
Affective Arousal as Information: How Affective Arousal Influences Judgments, Learning, and Memory
Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00138.x · Cited by 382
In Sight, Out of Mind: When Object Representations Fail
Simons, D. J. (1996) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00378.x · Cited by 378
Flexible cognitive resources: competitive content maps for attention and memory
Franconeri, S., Alvarez, G. A., & Patrick Cavanagh, B. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.010 · Cited by 369
Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: alternating views of reversible figures.
Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (2004) · Psychological bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748 · Cited by 362
Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness
Lupyan, G., & Ward, E. J. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1303312110 · Cited by 357
Dicks, M., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2010) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/app.72.3.706 · Cited by 355
Attention during natural vision warps semantic representation across the human brain
Çukur, T., Nishimoto, S., Huth, A. G., & Gallant, J. L. (2013) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3381 · Cited by 351
Sound alters activity in human V1 in association with illusory visual perception
Watkins, S., Shams, L. B., Tanaka, S., Haynes, J., & Rees, G. E. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.016 · Cited by 347
Natural Stimulus Statistics Alter the Receptive Field Structure of V1 Neurons
David, S. V., Vinje, W. E., & Gallant, J. L. (2004) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1422-04.2004 · Cited by 345
Visual hallucinations in Parkinson's disease: a review and phenomenological survey
Barnes, J. (2001) · Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.70.6.727 · Cited by 341
Categorical effects in the perception of faces
Beale, J. M., & Keil, F. C. (1995) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00669-x · Cited by 336
Natural Scene Categories Revealed in Distributed Patterns of Activity in the Human Brain
Walther, D. B., Caddigan, E., Fei-Fei, L., & Beck, D. M. (2009) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0559-09.2009 · Cited by 336
Visuospatial attention: Beyond a spotlight model
Cave, K. R., & Bichot, N. P. (1999) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03212327 · Cited by 334
Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply to Jerry Fodor
Churchland, P. M. (1988) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/289425 · Cited by 326
Decoding sound and imagery content in early visual cortex
Vetter, P., Smith, F. W., & Muckli, L. (2014) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.020 · Cited by 323
Wishful Seeing: More Desired Objects Are Seen as Closer
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797609356283 · Cited by 320
Feature-based attention modulates feedforward visual processing
Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2008) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2223 · Cited by 317
Witt, J. K. (2011) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721411408770 · Cited by 306
Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously
Sklar, A. Y., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211645109 · Cited by 304
Churchland, P. S., Ramachandran, V. S., & B, T. J. S. A. (1993) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 302
Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack
Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K., & Waymouth, S. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.5.964 · Cited by 302
Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: linking behavioural and neurophysiological evidence
Anton-Erxleben, K., & Carrasco, M. (2013) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3443 · Cited by 302
Perceiving Distance: A Role of Effort and Intent
Witt, J. K., Proffítt, D. R., & EPSTEIN, W. M. (2004) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p5090 · Cited by 299
Neural correlates of binocular rivalry in the human lateral geniculate nucleus
Wunderlich, K., Schneider, K. A., & Kästner, S. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1554 · Cited by 297
Activation of human primary visual cortex during visual recall: a magnetic resonance imaging study.
Bihan, D. L., Turner, R., Zeffiro, T. A., Cuénod, C. A., Jezzard, P., & Bonnerot, V. (1993) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.90.24.11802 · Cited by 290
The Eye Pupil Adjusts to Imaginary Light
Laeng, B., & Sulutvedt, U. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613503556 · Cited by 274
Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories.
Levin, D. T., & Banaji, M. R. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.501 · Cited by 264
Color discrimination and adaptation
Krauskopf, J., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (1992) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/0042-6989(92)90077-v · Cited by 263
Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception
Vetter, P., & Newen, A. (2014) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.007 · Cited by 263
Cognitive Penetrability and Perceptual Justification*
Siegel, S. (2011) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00786.x · Cited by 261
Redefining the role of limbic areas in cortical processing
Chanes, L., & Barrett, L. F. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.005 · Cited by 259
Traveling waves of activity in primary visual cortex during binocular rivalry
Lee, S., Blake, R., & Heeger, D. J. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1365 · Cited by 258
Clavagnier, S., Falchier, A., & Kennedy, H. (2004) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.4.2.117 · Cited by 257
Molyneux's Question: Vision, Touch and the Philosophy of Perception
D., C. P., & Morgan, M. J. (1978) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421707 · Cited by 250
Visual experiences in the blind induced by an auditory sensory substitution device
Ward, J., & Meijer, P. (2010) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.10.006 · Cited by 247
Selimbeyoglu, A. (2010) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00046 · Cited by 239
(1992) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6765.003.0014 · Cited by 238
Color appearance of familiar objects: Effects of object shape, texture, and illumination changes
Olkkonen, M., Hansen, T., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2008) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/8.5.13 · Cited by 234
The psychophysics of chasing: A case study in the perception of animacy
Gao, T., Newman, G. E., & Scholl, B. J. (2009) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.03.001 · Cited by 233
Self-citationMotion Detection and Motion Verbs
Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02016.x · Cited by 231
A metric for odorant comparison
Haddad, R., Khan, R. R., Takahashi, Y. K., Mori, K., Harel, D., & Sobel, N. (2008) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1197 · Cited by 220
Seeing Gray When Feeling Blue? Depression Can Be Measured in the Eye of the Diseased
Bubl, E., Kern, E., Ebert, D., Bach, M., & Tebartz van Elst, L. (2010) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.02.009 · Cited by 216
Effects of Categorization on Color Perception
Goldstone, R. L. (1995) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00514.x · Cited by 215
Todd, J. T., Thaler, L., Dijkstra, T. M. H., et al. (2007) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/7.12.9 · Cited by 206
Affective Signals of Threat Increase Perceived Proximity
Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. A. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612446953 · Cited by 205
Pupil-Linked Arousal Determines Variability in Perceptual Decision Making
Murphy, P. R., Vandekerckhove, J., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2014) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003854 · Cited by 205
(2016) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.194507 · Cited by 202
Dunning, D. A., & Balcetis, E. (2013) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721412463693 · Cited by 199
Attention Alters the Appearance of Spatial Frequency and Gap Size
Gobell, J. L., & Carrasco, M. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01588.x · Cited by 198
Witt, J. K., & Proffítt, D. R. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01640.x · Cited by 196
Direct Evidence for the Economy of Action: Glucose and the Perception of Geographical Slant
Schnall, S., Zadra, J. R., & Proffítt, D. R. (2010) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p6445 · Cited by 195
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Crawford, L. E., & Ahlvers, W. J. (2007) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.366 · Cited by 194
Ubiquity and Specificity of Reinforcement Signals throughout the Human Brain
Vickery, T. J., Chun, M. M., & Lee, D. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.011 · Cited by 191
A Reply to Churchland's “Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality”
Fodor, J. A. (1988) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/289426 · Cited by 190
Bright illusions reduce the eye's pupil
Laeng, B., & Endestad, T. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1118298109 · Cited by 184
“Top-Down” Effects Where None Should Be Found
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613485092 · Cited by 183
Self-citationPerceptual Expectation Evokes Category-Selective Cortical Activity
Esterman, M. S., & Yantis, S. (2009) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp188 · Cited by 180
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1994) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03206951 · Cited by 178
Cognitive Penetrability of Perception
Stokes, D. (2013) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12043 · Cited by 177
Attraction of Position Preference by Spatial Attention throughout Human Visual Cortex
Klein, B. P., Harvey, B. M., & Dumoulin, S. O. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.047 · Cited by 175
Object Knowledge Modulates Colour Appearance
Witzel, C., Valkova, H., Hansen, T., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2011) · i-Perception · doi:10.1068/i0396 · Cited by 173
The roles of altitude and fear in the perception of height.
Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffítt, D. R. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0013894 · Cited by 172
Womelsdorf, T., Anton-Erxleben, K., & Treue, S. (2008) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4030-07.2008 · Cited by 172
Klein, I. F., Dubois, J., Mangin, J., Kherif, F., Flandin, G., Poline, J., Denis, M., Kosslyn, S. M., & Bihan, D. L. (2004) · Cognitive Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.07.006 · Cited by 171
Cognitive Penetration and Perception of Art
Stokes, D. (2014) · dialectica · doi:10.1111/1746-8361.12049 · Cited by 171
Gao, T., McCarthy, G., & Scholl, B. J. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610388814 · Cited by 170
Self-citationPrediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2016) · Language, Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1081703 · Cited by 170
Pilgramm, S., de Haas, B., Helm, F., Zentgraf, K., Stark, R. M., Munzert, J., & Krüger, B. (2015) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.23015 · Cited by 168
Stereotypic vision: How stereotypes disambiguate visual stimuli.
Correll, J., Wittenbrink, B., Crawford, M. T., & Sadler, M. S. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspa0000015 · Cited by 164
Tricks of the mind: Visual hallucinations as disorders of attention
Shine, J. M., O’Callaghan, C., Halliday, G. M., & Lewis, S. J. G. (2014) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2014.01.004 · Cited by 162
Perceiving Animacy and Intentionality
Scholl, B. J., & Gao, T. (2013) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262019279.003.0009 · Cited by 161
Self-citationKanizsa, G. (1985) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(85)90040-x · Cited by 160
Natural-Scene Perception Requires Attention
Cohen, M. A., Alvarez, G. A., & Nakayama, K. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611419168 · Cited by 159
Expectation and the Perception of Color
Bruner, J. S., Postman, L., & Rodrigues, J. (1951) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1418668 · Cited by 157
The Cognitive Penetrability of Perception
(2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198738916.001.0001 · Cited by 156
Visual Adaptation of the Perception of Causality
Rolfs, M., Dambacher, M., & Patrick Cavanagh, B. (2013) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.12.017 · Cited by 156
Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers
Coren, S., & Enns, J. T. (1993) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03211782 · Cited by 155
Conceptual Penetration of Visual Processing
Lupyan, G., Thompson‐Schill, S. L., & Swingley, D. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610366099 · Cited by 155
Words Jump-Start Vision: A Label Advantage in Object Recognition
Boutonnet, B., & Lupyan, G. (2015) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5111-14.2015 · Cited by 154
Firestone, C. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691613489835 · Cited by 151
Self-citationAttention changes perceived size of moving visual patterns.
Anton-Erxleben, K., Henrich, C., & Treue, S. (2007) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/7.11.5 · Cited by 150
putting to a bigger hole: Golf performance relates to perceived size
Witt, J. K., Linkenauger, S. A., Bakdash, J. Z., & Proffítt, D. R. (2008) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.15.3.581 · Cited by 149
Reversible-figure perception: Mechanisms of intentional control
Toppino, T. C. (2003) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03194852 · Cited by 147
Pupil responses to high-level image content
Naber, M., & Nakayama, K. (2013) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/13.6.7 · Cited by 147
Decoding the yellow of a gray banana
Bannert, M. M., & Bartels, A. (2013) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.09.016 · Cited by 146
Medial Temporal Lobe Contributions to Episodic Sequence Encoding
Tubridy, S., & Davachi, L. (2010) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq092 · Cited by 145
A new mode of fear expression: perceptual bias in height fear
Teachman, B. A., Stefanucci, J. K., Clerkin, E. M., Cody, M. W., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.296 · Cited by 144
Evidence of Motivational Influences in Early Visual Perception: Hunger Modulates Conscious Access
Radel, R., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611427920 · Cited by 144
Cognitive Foundations of Action Planning and Control
Rosenbaum, D. Α. (2013) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262018555.003.0007 · Cited by 141
Political partisanship influences perception of biracial candidates' skin tone
Caruso, E. M., Mead, N. L., & Balcetis, E. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0905362106 · Cited by 141
Spiders at the cocktail party: an ancestral threat that surmounts inattentional blindness
New, J. J., & German, T. C. (2014) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.08.004 · Cited by 135
Big People, Little World: The Body Influences Size Perception
Stefanucci, J. K., & Geuss, M. N. (2009) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p6437 · Cited by 133
Ward, E. J., & Scholl, B. J. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0745-8 · Cited by 130
Self-citationShape Recognition Inputs To Figure-Ground Organization in Three-Dimensional Displays
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1993) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1993.1010 · Cited by 128
Levin, D. T., Takarae, Y., Miner, A. G., & Keil, F. C. (2001) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03194429 · Cited by 128
The various perceptions of distance: An alternative view of how effort affects distance judgments.
Woods, A. J., Philbeck, J. W., & DANOFF, J. V. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0013622 · Cited by 127
Is It Light or Dark? Recalling Moral Behavior Changes Perception of Brightness
Banerjee, P., Chatterjee, P., & Sinha, J. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611432497 · Cited by 127
Recovery of 3D volume from 2-tone images of novel objects
Moore, C., & Cavanagh, P. (1998) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00014-6 · Cited by 125
Kim, A., & Lai, V. T. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00148 · Cited by 125
An effect of mood on the perception of geographical slant
Riener, C. R., Stefanucci, J. K., Proffítt, D. R., & Clore, G. L. (2010) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931003738026 · Cited by 124
Is perception informationally encapsulated? The issue of the theory-ladenness of perception
Raftopoulos, A. (2001) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2503_4 · Cited by 122
Durgin, F. H., Klein, B., Spiegel, A. M., Strawser, C. J., & Williams, M. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0027805 · Cited by 122
Frank, M. J., Rudy, J. W., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2003) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.10084 · Cited by 119
Believing is seeing: expectations alter visual awareness
Sterzer, P., Frith, C., & Petrovic, P. (2008) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.021 · Cited by 118
Don't look down: Emotional arousal elevates height perception.
Stefanucci, J. K., & Storbeck, J. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0014797 · Cited by 117
Value, need, and other factors in perception.
Carter, L. F., & Schooler, K. K. (1949) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0060745 · Cited by 114
The moral pop-out effect: Enhanced perceptual awareness of morally relevant stimuli
Gantman, A. P., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2014) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.02.007 · Cited by 114
Recognition Alters the Spatial Pattern of fMRI Activation in Early Retinotopic Cortex
Hsieh, P.-J., Vul, E., & Kanwisher, N. (2010) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00812.2009 · Cited by 114
Visual Predictions in the Orbitofrontal Cortex Rely on Associative Content
Chaumon, M., Kveraga, K., Barrett, L. F., & Bar, M. (2013) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bht146 · Cited by 112
How prior expectations shape multisensory perception
Gau, R., & Noppeney, U. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.045 · Cited by 109
Prediction, context, and competition in visual recognition
Trapp, S., & Bar, M. (2015) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.12680 · Cited by 107
Visual motion aftereffect from understanding motion language
Dils, A. T., & Boroditsky, L. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1009438107 · Cited by 106
Optimal Deployment of Attentional Gain during Fine Discriminations
Scolari, M., Byers, A., & Serences, J. T. (2012) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5558-11.2012 · Cited by 106
Voluntary attention modulates the brightness of overlapping transparent surfaces.
Tse, P. (2005) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.11.001 · Cited by 105
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0711-5 · Cited by 103
Self-citationHoward, L. R., Kumaran, D., Ólafsdóttir, H. F., & Spiers, H. J. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6055-10.2011 · Cited by 102
The looming of spiders: The fearful perceptual distortion of movement and menace
Riskind, J. H., Moore, R., & Bowley, L. (1995) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)e0023-c · Cited by 101
Kicking to Bigger Uprights: Field Goal Kicking Performance Influences Perceived Size
Witt, J. K., & Dorsch, T. E. (2009) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p6325 · Cited by 100
Knowledge is power: How conceptual knowledge transforms visual cognition
Collins, J. A., & Olson, I. R. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0564-3 · Cited by 99
Lyons, M. T., Harrison, N., Brewer, G., et al. (2014) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.4135/9781473922648.n4 · Cited by 95
Spatial specificity of working memory representations in the early visual cortex
Pratte, M. S., & Tong, F. (2014) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/14.3.22 · Cited by 94
Perception of Lightness and Illumination in a World of One Reflectance
Gilchrist, A., & Jacobsen, A. R. (1984) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p130005 · Cited by 89
Through the eyes of dieters: Biased size perception of food following tempting food primes
van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Stroebe, W., & Aarts, H. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.012 · Cited by 86
Performance and Ease Influence Perceived Speed
Witt, J. K., & Sugovic, M. (2010) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p6699 · Cited by 86
Peterson, M. A., & Gibson, B. S. (1991) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.1.170 · Cited by 85
Perceptual processing is facilitated by ascribing meaning to novel stimuli
Lupyan, G., & Spivey, M. J. (2008) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.02.073 · Cited by 85
Assessing the role of attention in the audiovisual integration of speech
Navarra, J., Alsius, A., Soto‐Faraco, S., & Spence, C. J. (2009) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2009.04.001 · Cited by 85
Visual Feature Binding Requires Reentry
Bouvier, S. E., & Treisman, A. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797609357858 · Cited by 83
Philbeck, J. W., & Witt, J. K. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0039738 · Cited by 82
Fondness makes the distance grow shorter: Desired locations seem closer because they seem more vivid
Alter, A. L., & Balcetis, E. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.018 · Cited by 81
(2013) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262018555.001.0001 · Cited by 80
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Gibson, 1979, The ecological approach to perception and action
- Machery, 2015, The cognitive penetrability of perception: New philosophical perspectives
- Adelson, 2000, Lightness perception and lightness illusions, The new cognitive neurosciences, second edition, 339
- Blake, 2005, Perception, fifth edition
- Howard, 2002, Seeing in depth, vol. 2: Depth perception
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotations
Krishna, R., Zhu, Y., Groth, O., Johnson, J., Hata, K., Kravitz, J., Chen, S., Kalantidis, Y., Li, L.-J., Shamma, D. A., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-016-0981-7 · Cited by 5,107
The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis
Sterzer, P., Adams, R. A., Fletcher, P., Frith, C., Lawrie, S. M., Muckli, L., Petrovic, P., Uhlhaas, P., Voss, M., & Corlett, P. R. (2018) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.05.015 · Cited by 941
Hallucinations and strong priors
Corlett, P. R., Horga, G., Fletcher, P. C., Alderson-Day, B., Schmack, K., & Powers, A. R. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001 · Cited by 534
Suboptimality in perceptual decision making
Rahnev, D., & Denison, R. N. (2018) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x18000936 · Cited by 342
The Border Between Seeing and Thinking
Block, N. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197622223.001.0001 · Cited by 367
Metadata
- Authors
- Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2015-07-20
- Volume
- 39
- Pages
- e229-e229
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W2129245434
- Cited by
- 1,200
- References
- 309
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 167 · 2019: 200 · 2018: 92 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 7
- FWCI
- 51.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- philarchive.org
- Locations
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Taipei Medical University
- Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- top-down effects, visual perception, methodological pitfalls, linguistic representation
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Emotions, Humans, Visual Perception, Intention
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
