Dynamic Protention: The Architecture of Real-Time Cognition for Future Events
For over 30 years now, a body of physiological evidence has been acquired which indicates that cognitive operations coordinate via the phase synchronization of neuronal firing. While usually ascribed to “binding,” i.e., the putting together of basic perceptual features to form more complex perceptual units, this ascription is not without critics, who identify phase synchronization as a function of sensorimotor coordination. From the perspective of an experimental paradigm used to measure the effects of stimulus synchronization, we discuss what is “bound” and attempt a reconciliation between perceptual and sensorimotor accounts of oscillatory synchronization. Our evidence identifies a role for synchronization in protentive coding, this is to say, coding in anticipation of a future event, and hence describes the architecture of real-time cognition for future events.
KeywordsGeneralized phase angle hypothesis Perception Priming Protention Return phase hypothesis Synchronization
- Elliott MA, Müller HJ (2004) Synchronization and stimulus timing: implications for temporal models of visual information processing. In: Kaernbach C, Schröger E, Müller H (eds) Psychophysics beyond sensation. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, pp 137–156Google Scholar
- Elliott MA, Herrmann CS, Mecklinger A, Müller HJ (2001) The loci of 40-Hz visual-object priming mechanisms: a combined electroencephalographic and reaction-time study. Int J Psychophysiol 38(3):211–225Google Scholar
- Husserl E (1928) Zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins. Niemeyer, Halle a. S.Google Scholar
- Kompass R, Elliott MA (2001) Modeling as part of perception: a hypothesis on the function of neural oscillations. In: Sommerfeld E, Kompass R, Lachmann T (eds) Fechner Day 2001. Proceedings of the seventeenth annual meeting of the international society of psychophysics. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, pp 130–135Google Scholar