We have the feeling that we experience the world like a
continuously sampled data stream. If we perceive multiple objects of events
seemingly at the same time, we may actually be multiplexing the several data
streams; that is, we take a sample from one data stream, switch to take a
sample from the next stream and so on—all
on a millisecond time scale.
But another possibility is that we perceive objects and
events like a movie frame, where the brain takes working-memory snapshots and plays
them in succession. Like still frames in a movie, if played at a high-enough
speed, the frames will blend in our mind to give the illusion of continuous
monitoring.
In either case, we have to account for working memory. That
is, we can only hold a small amount of information in our working memory at any
one instant, as in being able to dial a seven-digit phone number you just
looked up. In the phone number case, does our brain accumulate and buffer the
representation of each integer until reaching the working memory holding
capacity and then report it to consciousness as a set? Or is each integer transferred
to consciousness and concantenated until the working memory capacity is filled?
A profound recent model of perception addresses the issue of
continuous or movie-like perception, but unfortunately, it did not take working
memory into consideration. The model did
address the issue of how consciousness integrates the static and dynamic
aspects of the object of attention. For example, when viewing a white and
moving baseball, consciousness apparently tracks both the static white color
and shape of the ball and its movement at the same time. Are these two visual
features bundled together and made available to consciousness on a continual basis
or as a batch frame?
A related issue is the so-called flash-lag illusion. Displaying
a moving object and a stationary light flash at the same time and location
creates the illusion that the flash is lagging. There is some debate over why
this happens, but it does argue against continuous monitoring of linked
objects.
Another phenomenon that argues against continuous monitoring
is the “color phi” phenomenon. Here, if two differently colored disks are shown
at two locations in rapid succession, a viewer perceives just one disk that
moves from the first location to the second, and the color of the first disk
changes along the illusory path of movement. But the viewer cannot know in
advance what the color and location of the second disk is. The brain must
construct that perception after the fact.
Another way of studying fusion phenomenon is to show two
different colored disks in rapid succession at the same location. In this case,
an initial red disk followed by a green disk will be perceived as only one yellow
disk. A viewer cannot consciously recognize the individual properties if there
is not enough time between the two disks. This suggests that information is
batched processed unconsciously and later made available to conscious
awareness. Transcranial magnetic stimulation can disrupt the fusion, but only
for about 400 milliseconds after the first stimulus when presumably the
processing is unconscious. Since the presentation of the two disks only takes
about 60 msecs, it means that unconscious processing of the fusion takes some
340 milliseconds before the results become available for conscious recognition.
Similar fusion can occur with other sense modalities. For
example, the “cutaneous rabbit” effect is a somatosensory fusion illusion in
which touch stimulation of first the wrist followed quickly by stimulation near
the elbow produces the feeling of touch along the nerve pathway between the two
points, as if a rabbit was hopping along the nerve. There is no way for
conscious mind to know the pathway without the second touch near the elbow
actually occurring. Perception of that pathway information is delayed until the
information has been processed unconsciously.
So while these examples argue against continuous
conscious monitoring of sensation, they don’t really fit well with the
movie-frame idea either. We can distinguish two visual stimuli only 3 msecs
apart, but a snapshot model that samples stimuli say every 40 msecs would miss
the second stimulus. So to reconcile these conflicting possibilities, the
authors advance a two-step model in which sensations are processed
unconsciously at high speed, but the conscious percept is reported periodically
or is read out when unconscious activity reaches a certain threshold or when
there is top-down demand.. This fits the data from others that conscious
awareness is delayed after the actual sensory event. For visual stimuli, this
delay can be as long as 400 msecs.
Here the question of interest is why sensory awareness might
require a mixture of continuous monitoring and periodic reporting of
immediately prior data segments. Continuous monitoring and processing permits
high-temporal resolution. Snapshot reporting conserves neural resources because
information accumulates as a batch (a few bytes) before becoming available to
consciousness. The really interesting question is what, if anything, happens to
that string of movie-like snapshots that are captured in consciousness. How do
these frames affect subsequent unconscious processing in the absence of further
sensory input? Can unconscious processes capture and operate on the frames of
conscious data? Or can successive frames of conscious data be processed batch
wise in consciousness? A useful analogy might be whole-word reading. A
beginning reader must sound out each letter in a word, which is comparable to
the high-resolution time tracking of sensory input. However, whole word reading
allows the more efficient capture of meaning because meaning has been batch pre-processed.
How do these ideas fit with the claim of other scholars that
consciousness is just an observer witnessing the movie of life as it occurs?
However, this assumption ignores the role that consciousness might have in
reasoning, making decisions, and issuing commands. I argue this point elsewhere
in my books, Mental Biology, and Making a Scientific Case for Conscious
Agency and Free Will.
Research claimed as showing that free will is illusory needs
reinterpretation in light of this two-step model of perception. Those
experiments typically involved asking a subject to make a simple movement, like
press a button, whenever they “freely” want to do so. They are to note when
they made the decision by looking at a large, high-resolution clock. At the
same time, their brain activity is monitored before, during, and after the
chain of events.
The first event is the intention to button press. Intention
is a conscious event. Was it preceded by unconscious high-resolution processing?
If so, what was the need for high resolution? Or maybe this is just the way the
brain is built to operate. The button press decision-making is a slow,
deliberative process, which perhaps could be handled consciously as a slow
progression of successive frames of conscious thought. Critics may say that
there is no such thing as conscious processing, but there is no evidence for
such conjecture. Once an intent is consciously realized, the subject is now
thinking about when to make the press. This decision may well be determined
unconsciously, but again there is no need for high temporal resolution.
Moreover, there are intervening conscious steps, where the subject may think to
himself, “I just did a press. Shouldn’t I wait? Is there any point in making many
presses with short intervals? Or with long intervals? Or with some random
mixture? Are each of these questions answered by the two-step model of sensory
processing?” However the decision developed, corresponding brain electrical
activity is available to be measured.
Then, there is the actual button press, the conscious
realization that it has occurred, and the conscious registration of the time on
the clock when the subject thought the decision to button press was made. Does
the two-step model apply here? If so, there has to be a great deal of timing
delays between what actually happened consciously in the brain and what the
subject eventually realized the conscious thoughts.
The point is that the two-stage model of perception may have
profound implications beyond sensation that involve ideation, reasoning,
decision-making, and voluntary behavior. I have corresponded with the lead
author to verify that I have a correct understanding of the publication. He
said that his group does plan to study the implications for working memory and
for free will.
Source:
Herzog, M. H., Kammer, Thomas, and Scharnowski, F. (2017).
Time slices: What is the duration of a pecept? PLOS. April 12.
Hrp://de.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio/1002433