Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T23:19:54.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anatomical, physiological, and psychophysical data show that the nature of conscious perception is incompatible with the integrated information theory (IIT)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2022

Moshe Gur Open the ORCID record for Moshe Gur [Opens in a new window]
Moshe Gur*
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Technion, Haifa, Israel, 3200003 mogi@bm.technion.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The integrated information theory (IIT) equates levels of consciousness with the amount of information integrated over the elements that constitute a system. Conscious visual perception provides two observations that contradict the IIT. First, objects are accurately perceived when presented for ≪100 ms during which time no neural integration is possible. Second, an object is seen as an integrated whole and, concurrently, all constituent elements are evident. Because integration destroys information about details, IIT cannot account for perceptual detail preservation.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e51
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Greene, E. & Visani, A. (2015). Recognition of letters displayed as briefly flashed dot patterns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 77, 1955–1969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gur, M. (2015). Space reconstruction by primary visual cortex activity patterns: A parallel, non-computational mechanism of object representation. Trends in Neuroscience 38, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gur, M. (2018). Very small faces are easily discriminated under long and short exposure times. Journal of Neurophysiology 119, 1599–1607. doi: 10.1152/jn.00622.2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gur, M. (2021) Psychophysical evidence and perceptual observations show that object recognition is not hierarchical but is a parallel, simultaneous, egalitarian, non-computational system. BioRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.06.10.447325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interactions, and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. Journal of Physiology 160, 106–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysers, C., Xiao, D.-K., Foldiak, P. & Perrett, D. I. (2001). The speed of light. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordberg, H., Hautus, M. & Greene, E. (2018). Visual encoding of partial unknown shape boundaries. AIMS Neuroscience 5, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolls, E. T., Tovee, M. J., Purcell, D. G., Stewart, A. L. & Azzopardi, P. (1994). The responses of neurons in the temporal cortex of primates, and face identification and detection. Experimental Brain Research 101, 474–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed