bioRxiv · 10.1101/066217
Mind over matter: A perceptual decision bias toward filled-in stimuli in the blind spot
Abstract
Humans often evaluate sensory signals according to their reliability for optimal decision-making. However, how do we evaluate percepts generated in the absence of direct input that are, therefore, completely unreliable? Here, we utilize the phenomenon of filling-in occurring at the physiological blind-spots to compare partially inferred and veridical percepts. Subjects chose between stimuli that elicit filling-in, and perceptually equivalent ones presented outside the blind-spots, looking for a Gabor stimulus without a small orthogonal inset. In ambiguous conditions, when the stimuli were physically identical and the inset was absent in both, subjects behaved opposite to optimal, preferring the blind-spot stimulus as the better example of a collinear stimulus, even though no relevant veridical information was available. Thus, a percept that is partially inferred is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input. In other words: Humans treat filled-in inferred percepts as more real than veridical ones.
Source connections
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Benedikt V Ehinger, Katja Häusser, José Ossandón, Peter König. 2016-07-27. Mind over matter: A perceptual decision bias toward filled-in stimuli in the blind spot. https://doi.org/10.1101/066217
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.