September 2005
Volume 5, Issue 8
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2005
Seeing what isn't there; The costs of perceptual learning
Author Affiliations
  • Aaron R. Seitz
    Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, and Department of Psychology, Boston University
  • Jose E. Nanez
    Department of Social and Behavioural Science, Arizona State University West
  • Steven R. Holloway
    Department of Social and Behavioural Science, Arizona State University West
  • Shinichi Koyama
    Department of Psychology, Boston University
  • Takeo Watanabe
    Department of Psychology, Boston University
Journal of Vision September 2005, Vol.5, 864. doi:10.1167/5.8.864
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Aaron R. Seitz, Jose E. Nanez, Steven R. Holloway, Shinichi Koyama, Takeo Watanabe; Seeing what isn't there; The costs of perceptual learning. Journal of Vision 2005;5(8):864. doi: 10.1167/5.8.864.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Perceptual learning is defined as plasticity in one's sensory brain-areas and helps us to better perceive the visual environment. A natural question to ask when evaluating studies of perceptual learning is what is the cost of perceptual learning? If there is no cost, why wouldn't sensory processing already be at its maximal level of performance? To date studies of perceptual learning have concentrated only on its benefits, and the possible costs of such learning are ignored. Here we show that perceptual learning can also lead to misperceptions, such that subjects actually perceive stimuli when none are physically presented. We demonstrate this counterintuitive result by using a reinforcement procedure in which motion stimuli, which were too dim for subjects to detect, were temporally paired with the targets of a letter task. After learning, subjects not only showed enhanced sensitivity to the motion direction of the trained stimulus but often reported seeing dots moving in the trained direction when no stimulus was displayed. We further show that these misperceptions result from a perceptual bias and are not attributable to a response bias. These results show that there are costs as well as benefits to perceptual learning and that sensitivity enhancements for a specific feature can also be accompanied by misperceptions of the visual environment.

Seitz, A. R. Nanez, J. E. Holloway, S. R. Koyama, S. Watanabe, T. (2005). Seeing what isn't there; The costs of perceptual learning [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 5(8):864, 864a, http://journalofvision.org/5/8/864/, doi:10.1167/5.8.864. [CrossRef]
Footnotes
 NSF 0418182, NIH R01 EY015980-01, Human Frontier Foundation RGP18/2004
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×