22 March 2019
|
Abstract |
Hohwy et al.’s (2008) ‘epistemological’ explanation of binocular rivalry is taken as a classic illustration of predictive coding’s ubiquity and explanatory power. I revisit the account and show that it cannot explain a core feature of binocular rivalry, namely, perceptual dominance in rewarded conditions. A more recent version of Bayesian model averaging, known as Variational Bayes, can account for the role of reward in rivalry by recasting it as a form of optimism bias. However, I argue that if we accept this modified account, we must revise our understanding of perception as a neutral, informational or ‘theoretical’ process in the mind.
25 January, Michael SIBLERSTEIN [WEBINAR]: Constraints on Localization and Decomposition 2.0
1/17/2019
Constraints on Localization and Decomposition as Explanatory Strategies in the Biological Sciences 2.0
11 January 2019
h 15-17 - Greenwhich Mean Time
(check your local time here)
Sarah ROBINS
(University of Kansas)
MEMORY and OPTOGENETIC INTERVENTION:
Separating the Engram from the Ecphory
Abstract
Optogenetics makes possible the control of neural activity with light. In this paper, I explore how the development of this experimental tool has brought about methodological and theoretical advances in the neurobiological study of memory. I begin with Semon’s (1921) distinction between the engram and the ecphory, explaining how these concepts present a methodological challenge to investigating memory. Optogenetics provides a way to intervene into the engram without the ecphory that, in turn, opens up new means for testing theories of memory error. I focus on a series of experiments where optogenetics is used to study false memory and forgetting. I conclude with discussion of the recent discovery of “silent engrams” (e.g., Roy, Muralidhar, Smith, & Tonegawa, 2017) using optogenetics and the way in which these results create further opportunities and challenges for engram theory.