Theory & Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LaRock, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Theory & Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 6, 747-777 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354307083492

Disambiguation, Binding, and the Unity of Visual Consciousness

Eric LaRock

OAKLAND UNIVERSITYlarock{at}oakland.edu

Recent findings in neuroscience strongly suggest that an object's features (e.g., its color, texture, shape, etc.) are represented in separate areas of the visual cortex. Although represented in separate neuronal areas, somehow the feature representations are brought together as a single, unified object of visual consciousness. This raises a question of binding: how do neural activities in separate areas of the visual cortex function to produce a feature-unified object of visual consciousness? Several prominent neuroscientists have adopted neural synchrony and attention-based approaches to explain object feature binding. I argue that although neural synchrony and/or attentional mechanisms might function to disambiguate an object's features, it is difficult to see how either of these mechanisms could fully explain the unity of an object's features at the level of visual consciousness. After presenting a detailed critique of neural synchrony and attention-based approaches to object feature binding, I propose interactive hierarchical structuralism (IHS). This view suggests that a unified percept (i.e., a feature-unified object of visual consciousness) is not reducible to the activity of any cognitive capacity or to any localized neural area, but emerges out of the interaction of visual information organized by spatial structuring capacities correlated with lower, higher, and intermediate levels of the visual hierarchy. After clarifying different notions of emergence and elaborating evidence for IHS, I discuss how IHS can be tested through transcranial magnetic stimulation and masking. In the final section I present some further implications/advantages of IHS.

Key Words: ambiguity • attention • binding • consciousness • disambiguation • emergentism • object perception • spatial structure • unified experience


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
C. van Leeuwen
Synchrony, Binding, and Consciousness: How Are They Related?
Theory Psychology, December 1, 2007; 17(6): 779 - 790.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
F. van der Velde
Binding and Consciousness from an Intrinsic Perspective
Theory Psychology, December 1, 2007; 17(6): 791 - 797.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
E. LaRock
Intrinsic Perspectives, Object Feature Binding, and Visual Consciousness
Theory Psychology, December 1, 2007; 17(6): 799 - 809.
[Abstract] [PDF]