Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Is information theory, or the assumptions that surround it, holding back neuroscience?

  • Lee de-Wit (a1), Vebjørn Ekroll (a2), Dietrich Samuel Schwarzkopf (a3) (a4) and Johan Wagemans (a5)

Abstract

The challenges raised in this article are not with information theory per se, but the assumptions surrounding it. Neuroscience isn't sufficiently critical about the appropriate ‘receiver’ or ‘channel’, focuses on decoding ‘parts’, and often relies on a flawed ‘veridicality’ assumption. If these problematic assumptions were questioned, information theory could be better directed to help us understand how the brain works.

Copyright

References

Hide All
de-Wit, L., Alexander, D., Ekroll, V. & Wagemans, J. (2016) Is neuroimaging measuring information in the brain? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(5):1415–28.
Kogo, N. & Wagemans, J. (2013) The “side” matters: How configurality is reflected in completion (Discussion Paper). Cognitive Neuroscience 4:3161.
Marr, D. (1982b) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.
Mausfeld, R. (2003) No psychology in–no psychology out. Psychologische Rundschau 54(3):185–91.
von Uexküll, J. (1992) A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica 89(4):319–91.

Is information theory, or the assumptions that surround it, holding back neuroscience?

  • Lee de-Wit (a1), Vebjørn Ekroll (a2), Dietrich Samuel Schwarzkopf (a3) (a4) and Johan Wagemans (a5)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed