Brien, 1998; Sanford, 1990; Sanford Garrod, 1998). This was known as resonance, and it can be distinguished from the use of high level representations of events or event structures (that include information about `who does what to whom’) to predictively pre-activate upcoming semantic features or categories (see Kuperberg et al., 2011; Lau et al., 2013; Otten Van Berkum, 2007; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012 for discussion).Lang Cogn Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 01.Kuperberg and JaegerPageArguments against predictive pre-activation–By the late 1990s, many psycholinguists were somewhat dubious that predictive PD150606 molecular weight pre-activation played much of a role in normal language comprehension (but see Altmann, 1999; Federmeier Kutas, 1999; Federmeier et al., 2007, and also Tanenhaus et al., 1995, for early discussions of predictive pre-activation in the behavioral and ERP literatures). There was certainly widespread acknowledgment that high level information within the comprehender’s internal representation of context could influence comprehension quickly and incrementally. However, most sentence processing frameworks assumed (either implicitly or explicitly) that such high level information facilitated the processing of new lower level information only after this new lower level information had initially been activated by the bottom-up input. There were several reasons for this skepticism. The first was an intuition that allowing predictive pre-activation to influence processing might afford our prior beliefs too much power, purchase SC144 leading to distortions of perceptual or interpretational reality (e.g. Massaro, 1989). These initial concerns, however, may have been overblown. Within the speech recognition literature, there remain some legitimate concerns that feedback loops between lexical and phonemic representations might lead to auditory hallucinations (see Norris et al., 2000, p. 302 for discussion). However, under the current proposal, lexical inferences based on prior bottom-up input would be used to pre-activate upcoming phonemic information. Moreover, we argue that any predictive pre-activation would primarily influence perception in cases when there is relative uncertainty about the bottom-up input, as in, for example, the phonemic restoration effect (Warren, 1970), or, more generally, processing in the presence of high degrees of environmental noise (McGowan, 2015; Miller, Heise, Lichten, 1951; Stilp Kluender, 2010; Woods, Yund, Herron, Ua Cruadhlaoich, 2010, reviewed by Davis Johnsrude, 2007).10 Similarly, in the sentence processing literature, our prior knowledge, based on real-world knowledge or strongly canonical structures, seems to primarily lead to misinterpretation of the bottom-up input — so-called `good enough processing; (Ferreira, 2003) — when there are strong syntactic expectations (for related discussion, see Kuperberg, 2007). The key point is that these phenomena are, in effect, examples of perceptual hallucinations (in the case of speech perception) or `cognitive’ hallucinations (in the case of `good enough processing’), and the way that they can be explained is precisely through the combination of strong predictive pre-activation and (relative) uncertainty about the bottomup input. A second concern that was sometimes raised about predictive pre-activation is similar to that discussed in section 1: that it may entail costs of inhibiting or suppressing predicted candidates that are not supporte.Brien, 1998; Sanford, 1990; Sanford Garrod, 1998). This was known as resonance, and it can be distinguished from the use of high level representations of events or event structures (that include information about `who does what to whom’) to predictively pre-activate upcoming semantic features or categories (see Kuperberg et al., 2011; Lau et al., 2013; Otten Van Berkum, 2007; Paczynski Kuperberg, 2012 for discussion).Lang Cogn Neurosci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 01.Kuperberg and JaegerPageArguments against predictive pre-activation–By the late 1990s, many psycholinguists were somewhat dubious that predictive pre-activation played much of a role in normal language comprehension (but see Altmann, 1999; Federmeier Kutas, 1999; Federmeier et al., 2007, and also Tanenhaus et al., 1995, for early discussions of predictive pre-activation in the behavioral and ERP literatures). There was certainly widespread acknowledgment that high level information within the comprehender’s internal representation of context could influence comprehension quickly and incrementally. However, most sentence processing frameworks assumed (either implicitly or explicitly) that such high level information facilitated the processing of new lower level information only after this new lower level information had initially been activated by the bottom-up input. There were several reasons for this skepticism. The first was an intuition that allowing predictive pre-activation to influence processing might afford our prior beliefs too much power, leading to distortions of perceptual or interpretational reality (e.g. Massaro, 1989). These initial concerns, however, may have been overblown. Within the speech recognition literature, there remain some legitimate concerns that feedback loops between lexical and phonemic representations might lead to auditory hallucinations (see Norris et al., 2000, p. 302 for discussion). However, under the current proposal, lexical inferences based on prior bottom-up input would be used to pre-activate upcoming phonemic information. Moreover, we argue that any predictive pre-activation would primarily influence perception in cases when there is relative uncertainty about the bottom-up input, as in, for example, the phonemic restoration effect (Warren, 1970), or, more generally, processing in the presence of high degrees of environmental noise (McGowan, 2015; Miller, Heise, Lichten, 1951; Stilp Kluender, 2010; Woods, Yund, Herron, Ua Cruadhlaoich, 2010, reviewed by Davis Johnsrude, 2007).10 Similarly, in the sentence processing literature, our prior knowledge, based on real-world knowledge or strongly canonical structures, seems to primarily lead to misinterpretation of the bottom-up input — so-called `good enough processing; (Ferreira, 2003) — when there are strong syntactic expectations (for related discussion, see Kuperberg, 2007). The key point is that these phenomena are, in effect, examples of perceptual hallucinations (in the case of speech perception) or `cognitive’ hallucinations (in the case of `good enough processing’), and the way that they can be explained is precisely through the combination of strong predictive pre-activation and (relative) uncertainty about the bottomup input. A second concern that was sometimes raised about predictive pre-activation is similar to that discussed in section 1: that it may entail costs of inhibiting or suppressing predicted candidates that are not supporte.
Related Posts
Function for T-type Ca2+ channels has usually (but not generally) been determined by the use
Function for T-type Ca2+ channels has usually (but not generally) been determined by the use of mibefradil (which was initially proposed as a selective T-type Ca2+ channel blocker but has because been shown to exert other effects, such as inhibition of store-operated Ca2+ entry [15]),A0 1 two 3no. cells (x103)/mlno drug CORM-3 iCORMBWTCav3.no drug CORM-3 […]
Xpression to mutated hGBAs in fly eyes. (A) Phenotype of eyesXpression to mutated hGBAs in
Xpression to mutated hGBAs in fly eyes. (A) Phenotype of eyesXpression to mutated hGBAs in fly eyes. (A) Phenotype of eyes overexpressing hGBAWT transgenic combination usually do not considerably differ from these of GMR manage. Phenotype of eyes overexpressing hGBAR120W transgenic combinations sometimes differed when it comes to morphology in some flies compared with handle. […]
Yoda 1
Product Name : Yoda 1Description:Yoda 1 is a Piezo1 agonist. Yoda 1 activates purified Piezo1 channels.CAS: 448947-81-7Molecular Weight:355.27Formula: C13H8Cl2N4S2Chemical Name: 2-(5-[(2,6-dichlorophenyl)methyl]sulfanyl-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)pyrazineSmiles : ClC1=CC=CC(Cl)=C1CSC1=NN=C(S1)C1C=NC=CN=1InChiKey: BQNXBSYSQXSXPT-UHFFFAOYSA-NInChi : InChI=1S/C13H8Cl2N4S2/c14-9-2-1-3-10(15)8(9)7-20-13-19-18-12(21-13)11-6-16-4-5-17-11/h1-6H,7H2Purity: ≥98% (or refer to the Certificate of Analysis)Shipping Condition: Shipped under ambient temperature as non-hazardous chemical or refer to Certificate of AnalysisStorage Condition : Dry, dark and -20 oC […]