Search

The question of the richness (or sparseness) of conscious experience has evoked ongoing debate and discussion. Claims for both richness and sparseness are supported by empirical data, yet they are often indirect, and alternative explanations have been put forward. Recently, it has been suggested that current experimental methods limit participants' responses, thereby preventing researchers from assessing the actual richness of perception. Instead, free verbal reports were presented as a possible way to overcome this limitation. As part of this approach, a novel paradigm of freely reported words was developed using a new metric, intersubjective agreement (IA), with experimental results interpreted as capturing aspects of conscious perception. Here, we challenge the validity of freely reported words as a tool for studying the richness of conscious experience. We base our claims on two studies (each composed of three experiments), where we manipulated the richness of percepts and tested whether IA changed accordingly. Five additional control experiments were conducted to validate the experimental logic and examine alternative explanations. Our results suggest otherwise, presenting four challenges to the free verbal report paradigm: first, impoverished stimuli did not evoke lower IA scores. Second, the IA score was correlated with word frequency in English. Third, the original positive relationship between IA scores and rated confidence was not found in any of the six experiments. Fourth, a high rate of nonexisting words was found, some of which described items that matched the gist of the scene but did not appear in the image. We conclude that a metric based on freely reported words might be better explained by vocabulary conventions and gist-based reports than by capturing the richness of perception., Competing Interests: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Voluntary actions are shaped by desired goals and internal intentions. Multiple factors, including the planning of subsequent actions and the expectation of sensory outcome, were shown to modulate kinetics and neural activity patterns associated with similar goal-directed actions. Notably, in many real-world tasks, actions can also vary across the semantic meaning they convey, although little is known about how semantic meaning modulates associated neurobehavioral measures. Here, we examined how behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging measures are modulated when subjects execute similar actions (button presses) for two different semantic meanings-to answer "yes" or "no" to a binary question. Our findings reveal that, when subjects answer using their right hand, the two semantic meanings are differentiated based on voxel patterns in the frontoparietal cortex and lateral-occipital complex bilaterally. When using their left hand, similar regions were found, albeit only with a more liberal threshold. Although subjects were faster to answer "yes" versus "no" when using their right hand, the neural differences cannot be explained by these kinetic differences. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first evidence showing that semantic meaning is embedded in the neural representation of actions, independent of alternative modulating factors such as kinetic and sensory features., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Visual objects are typically perceived as parts of an entire visual scene, and the scene's context provides information crucial in the object recognition process. Fundamental insights into the mechanisms of context-object integration have come from research on semantically incongruent objects, which are defined as objects with a very low probability of occurring in a given context. However, the role of attention in processing of the context-object mismatch remains unclear, with some studies providing evidence in favor, but other against an automatic capture of attention by incongruent objects. Therefore, in the present study, 25 subjects completed a dot-probe task, in which pairs of scenes-congruent and incongruent or neutral and threatening-were presented as task-irrelevant distractors. Importantly, threatening scenes are known to robustly capture attention and thus were included in the present study to provide a context for interpretation of results regarding incongruent scenes. Using N2 posterior-contralateral ERP component as a primary measure, we revealed that threatening images indeed capture attention automatically and rapidly, but semantically incongruent scenes do not benefit from an automatic attentional selection. Thus, our results suggest that identification of the context-object mismatch is not preattentive., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permission@oup.com.)