Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Why vision is a decision-making process + Neanderthals learned artifacts from us

#1
C C Offline
New research determines our species created earliest modern artifacts in Europe
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/...050820.php

INTRO: Blade-like tools and animal tooth pendants previously discovered in Europe, and once thought to possibly be the work of Neanderthals, are in fact the creation of Homo sapiens, or modern humans, who emigrated from Africa, finds a new analysis by an international team of researchers.

Its conclusions, reported in the journal Nature, add new clarity to the arrival of Homo sapiens into Europe and to their interactions with the continent's indigenous and declining Neanderthal population. The analysis centers on an earlier discovery of bones and other artifacts found in the Bacho Kiro cave in what is modern-day Bulgaria.

"Our findings link the expansion of what were then advanced technologies, such as blade tools and pendants made from teeth and bone, with the spread of Homo sapiens more than 45,000 years ago," explains Shara Bailey, a professor in NYU's Department of Anthropology and one of the paper's co-authors. "This confirms that Homo sapiens were mostly responsible for these 'modern' creations and that similarities between these and other sites in which Neanderthals made similar things are due to interaction between the populations."

The findings offer a new understanding of both the nature of these species and their interactions. "If Neanderthals had created these 'modern' tools and jewelry, it would have indicated they had more advanced cognitive abilities than previously recognized," explains Bailey. "Nonetheless, there are some similarities in manufacturing techniques used by Homo sapiens at Bacho Kiro and Neanderthals elsewhere, which makes clear that there was cultural transmission going on between the two groups." (MORE)



Why visual perception is a decision process
https://news.rub.de/english/press-releas...on-process

RELEASE: A popular theory in neuroscience called predictive coding proposes that the brain produces all the time expectations that are compared with incoming information. Errors arising from differences between actual input and prediction are then iteratively minimized along a hierarchical processing scheme. It is assumed that such stepwise iteration leads to updating of brain predictions so that internal prediction errors are finally explained away.

Neuroscientists at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB) together with colleagues at the Freiburg University show that this is not strictly the case. Instead, they show that prediction errors can occasionally appear as visual illusion when viewing rapid image sequences. Thus, rather than being explained away prediction errors remain in fact accessible at final processing stages forming perception. Previous theories of predictive coding need therefore to be revised. The study is reported in Plos One on 4. May 2020.

To fixate objects in the outside world, our eyes perform far more than one hundred thousand of rapid movements per day called saccades. However, as soon as our eyes rest about 100 milliseconds, the brain starts making predictions. Differences between previous and current image contents are then forwarded to subsequent processing stages as prediction errors. The advantage to deal with differences instead of complete image information is obvious: similar to video compression techniques the data volume is drastically reduced. Another advantage turns up literally only at second sight: statistically, there is a high probability that the next saccade lands on locations where differences to previous image contents are largest. Thus, calculating potential changes of image content as the differences to previous contents prepares the visual system early on for new input.

To test whether the brain uses indeed such a strategy, the authors presented rapid sequences of two images to human volunteers. In the first image two gratings were superimposed, in the second image only one of the gratings was present. The task was to report the orientation of the last seen single grating. In most cases, the participants correctly reported the orientation of the present orientation, as expected. However, surprisingly, in some cases an orientation was perceived that was exactly orthogonal to the present orientation. That is, participants saw sometimes the difference between the previous superimposed gratings and the present single grating. "Seeing the difference instead of the real current input is here a visual illusion that can be interpreted as directly seeing the prediction error,” says Robert Staadt from the Institute of Neural Computation of the RUB, first author of the study.

"Within the framework of the predictive coding theory, prediction errors are mostly conceived in the context of higher cognitive functions that are coupled to conscious expectations. However, we demonstrate that prediction errors also play a role in the context of highly dynamic perceptual events that take place within fractions of a second,” explains Dr. Dirk Jancke, head of the Optical Imaging Group at the Institute of Neural Computation. The present study reveals that the visual system simultaneously keeps up information about past, current, and possible future image contents. Such strategy allows both stability and flexibility when viewing rapid image sequences. "Altogether, our results support hypotheses that consider perception as a result of a decision process,” says Jancke. Hence, prediction errors should not be sorted out too early, as they might become relevant for following events.

In next studies the scientists will scrutinize the sets of parameters that drive the perceptual illusion most effectively. Besides straightforward physical parameters like stimulus duration, brightness, and contrast, other, more elusive factors that characterize psychological features might be involved. The authors’ long-term perspective is the development of practical visual tests that can be used for an early diagnosis of cognitive disorders connected to rapid perceptual decision processes. (MORE - details)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article What the science actually says about unconscious decision making C C 1 80 Sep 24, 2023 06:11 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Article Take the money now or later? Financial scarcity doesn’t lead to poor decision making C C 0 57 Sep 14, 2023 05:56 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why does swearing make us stronger? + What did Neanderthals evolve from? C C 0 64 Apr 25, 2022 04:53 PM
Last Post: C C
  An ocean in your brain: Interacting brain waves key to how we process information C C 0 68 Apr 22, 2022 07:41 PM
Last Post: C C
  Smoking cannabis significantly impairs vision but many users are unaware of it C C 2 146 Apr 14, 2021 07:32 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  10 things learned about human origins in 2020 + Warm oceans aided human migration C C 1 159 Dec 31, 2020 03:50 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Icelandic DNA jigsaw-puzzle brings new knowledge about Neanderthals C C 0 214 Apr 24, 2020 02:07 AM
Last Post: C C
  These Images Can Alter Your Vision For Months C C 0 295 Jul 7, 2018 08:30 PM
Last Post: C C
  Empty brain: Your brain doesn't process info, retrieve knowledge or store memories C C 1 582 May 21, 2016 10:22 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Sex with Neanderthals: Ancient human bone helps reveal first stages C C 0 711 Oct 23, 2014 03:51 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)