I tried to do what we call, if I may be so bold, a "conceptual scoop"!!
Pls read my story on the most overlooked form of extreme confinement of farmed animals—the routine caging of millions of dairy calves in tiny crates less than 1/10 the size of a parking spot.
It's not about veal! (🧵)
Two posts from Bluesky. The first one shows a figure from a paper published in Nature Scientific Reports full of totally incoherent AI fabricated gibberish words. The other a comment on a recently published paper by eLife discussing the paper and its peer reviews which were published along with the paper.
Nature Sci Rep publishes incoherent AI slop. eLife publishes a paper which the reviewers didn't agree with, making all the comments and responses public with thoughtful commentary. One of these journals got delisted by Web of Science for quality concerns from not doing peer review. Guess which one?
Perceptual filling-in only needs this kind of feedback if retinotopic visual cortex is a homunculus that instantiates subjective experience (the "isomorphic" theory of filling-in). An alternative is that filling-in involves more symbolic feature/object representations at a higher level.
PS: all raw data, processed data, and code are publicly available: doi.org/10.17605/OSF...
These results provide insight into microsaccades’ general mechanism of action in the visual system, and advance our understanding of the quite compelling illusion of filling-in. (3/3)
doi.org/10.1167/jov....
We found that microsaccades are indeed more effective when boundaries are closer to the fovea. However, they introduce equal delays across different levels of isoluminant color contrast, meaning that microsaccadic delays do *not* explain why less similar colors take longer to fill-in. (2/3)
a grey circle on a purple background
NEW PAPER 👁️🚨 w/ @sylvainbaillet.bsky.social
If you keep your eyes very still, the visual world oddly appears to "fill-in", or blend across boundaries. Filling-in over stronger boundaries requires even longer staring. Is this because involuntary microsaccades more effectively delay filling-in? (1/3)
Sensorimotor control meets visual consciousness.
Our new Journal of Vision paper led by @maxlevinson.bsky.social shows that microsaccades reset visual processing & delay perceptual illusions (here, filling-in). www.neurospeed-bailletlab.org/news/zl2erl3... 🧵
Chuck Schumer Helps Pull Democrats Back From Brink Of Courage
Chuck Schumer Helps Pull Democrats Back From Brink Of Courage
1/ "A science of consciousness beyond pseudo-science and pseudo-consciousness" is out now! it was a joy to coauthor this commentary with Àlex Gómez-Marin @behaviOrganisms for @NatureNeuro, in which we try find some positive lessons in the clash over IIT www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Delighted to report the publication of our new paper with @biyuhe.bsky.social in @plosbiology.org. In the study, we find that oscillatory and non-oscillatory neural signals likely influence conscious visual perception independently.
doi.org/10.1371/jour...
I made this tool that I think is pretty useful if you are running online experiments and using the OSF. It's free. And open source. And you can use other free tools with it to run an online experiment for free.
pipe.jspsych.org
Is IIT a “psuedoscientific” theory?
The moment I’ve always hoped for, to plug this piece w/ Clare Press and Cecilia Heyes.
The 7 questions psychologists and neuroscientists can ask ourselves if we want to build better theories and interrogate our own…
www.cell.com/current-biol...
#neuroskyence
that’s fair 😛 and maybe case in point that it’s distracting to neutral parties
totally agree except I think a focus on the pseudoscience claim is reasonable. attaching their arguments to such a sensational (and potentially unrelated) headline makes it a lot more difficult to take the points seriously
Of course, but maybe odd to tell the NYT editorial board that IIT work is not science.
I support the SOS. But 'pseudoscience' isn’t a call for nuance, it means IIT (& not competing theories) should disappear from scientific practice. If that’s what you mean, I’d argue you do have a responsibility to define pseudoscience beyond a speech-act. If not, then it’s not an appropriate label.
