What’s the difference between perceptual
awareness and tummy shirts? Well, maybe it’s that awareness has lately been
making its fashion comeback in the scientific world.
For many decades, consciousness and
perceptual awareness were regarded as the “ugh, yuck” -topics by many
scientists – and if you liked to be seen as a serious researcher, you better kept
your fingers away from these dirty, subjective phenomena. “Do not play with the
consciousness people”, is what you’re mother would have told you.
Although maybe not as fast as fashion, this is changing: Starting in the 1980’s, interest was arising again (although
definitions of what the phenomenon under scrutiny is, vary hugely).
Now, a main part
of the research on consciousness examines the relationship between the
experiences reported by subjects and the activity that simultaneously takes
place in their brains—that is, the study of the neural correlates of
consciousness.
The hope was to find a particular active part of the brain or a
particular pattern of global brain activity, from which one could predict conscious
awareness, and thus many brain imaging techniques, such as EEG and fMRI, have
been used in these studies.
Many different brain areas have been proposed for
the job, but although some connections could be seen, none and no cooperation
can be hold fully responsible.
As often
when no promising answers can be found, it was then proposed that “Where in the
brain is consciousness?” was just the wrong question to ask. The
researchers from the University of Osnabrück, whose interesting project I will talk about next certainly
think so:
They
believe that perceptual awareness, one of or maybe the feature of consciousness, is “not established by the activation of specific brain
structures, but by a lawful connection of perception and action. The
qualitative difference between two modalities is neither a result of the site
of sensory processing in the cortex, nor the differences inherent in the neural
code. Instead, it is a result of the difference in structural invariants of the
change of sensory input resulting from action.”
A modality then would not be seen as
bound to a certain sensory apparatus, but becomes a certain way of actively
exploring the environment. This means, that qualitatively new ways of
perceptual awareness could arise if we had access to a novel set of
sensorimotor contingencies not supplied by any other sensory apparatus. We
could literally gain a new – a sixth – sense!
To underpin this hypothesis,
they invented this belt:
It enables the subject to feel his
orientation in space through a set of vibrators controlled by an electronic
compass: the element pointing north is always slightly vibrating. That way, the
person wearing the belt gets permanent input about his heading relative to the
earth's magnetic field. This is of course cribbed from the ability of many animals (like migrating birds) to perceive a magnetic field to locate themselves.
Participants of
this study had to wear the belt over a period of six weeks whenever they were
awake. Before and after this period they underwent a number of tests: Orientation
tasks showed that subjects were able to integrate this new sense and were not
only better at orientation tasks, but also relied on the belt information as
one relies on other modalities such as visual input. When the belt gave false
information about the north direction, people often made wrong choices when while
orienting in a virtual environment. Even without being attentive to the clues
given by the belt, subjects integrated the information, supporting a sub-cognitive processing hypothesis.
What are we to
make of this? Although it might seem as if it could be concluded from these
findings that a new perceptual modality has arised, it is remarkable that the
participants did not feel a local magnetic field or something similar. It seems
to be more the case that a modification of the already existing spatial
perception has occurred.
A possible
explanation for that might be that a sense of a local magnetic field was not
relevant for humans in evolution and is even less crucial in our current
environment.
Thus, I would
think that it is not possible to “invent” a sixth sense in the way the
researchers tried to – without changing the affordances of our environment
respectively. But it shows that humans seem to be in general capable of
integrating new sensory information that leads them to experience the world in
a different way.
You can read the
full study with detailed descriptions and analyses of the tests here.
Right, new cogsci research project planned. I've already got a compass and a belt, now I'm off to Anne Summers to buy a set of vibrators to test this thing out. Sixth sense, here I come!
ReplyDelete@ Victoria: Cool post, very interesting.
ReplyDelete@ Hugh: I expect pictures of the above on your next post.
@ Victoria: Cool post, very interesting.
ReplyDelete@ Hugh: I expect pictures of the above on your next post.
Nice! I know now what I should buy to some of my friends :)
ReplyDeleteHmm,... maybe "sixth sense" is a wrong term though. For instance, I depend on my smartphone in many situations, not only when I need to go to a new place, and I can easily access a map, but for everyday information I need. I wouldn't consider it as a sixth sense though.