Multiple Factors and Multiple Mechanisms Determine the Quality of Conscious Experiences: A Reply to Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń

In this Letter to the Editor, we seize the opportunity to respond to the recent comments by Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń, and further clarify and extend the scope of our original paper. We re‐emphasize that conscious experiences come in degrees, and that there are several factors that determine this degree. Endorsing the suggestions of Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń, we discuss that besides low‐level attentional mechanisms, high‐level attentional and non‐attentional mechanisms might also modulate the quality of conscious experiences.     

Interaction and social cognition: A comment on Auvray et al.’s perceptual crossing paradigm

The past few years have seen the emergence of interaction as a central topic within social cognition research. This has involved an increasing interest in the development of ecological, interactive contexts for the empirical study of social cognition, and also in theoretical reflection upon the relationship between interaction and social cognition. One particularly prominent contribution to this trend has been Auvray et al., 2006, June 23, Auvray et al., 2009 minimalist perceptual crossing experiment (as well as follow-up studies conducted by Di Paolo, Ezequiel, Rohde and Iizuka (2008) and Froese and Di Paolo, 2010, Froese and Di Paolo, 2011a). The experiment provides an elegant illustration of the complexity of the relationship between social cognition and the interactive settings in which it usually occurs, and has proven to be a fruitful basis for the articulation of theoretical options for conceptualizing that relationship. In this contribution, we criticize one particular theoretical option that has recently been advanced by theorists working within the enactivist tradition (e.g. De Jaegher et al., 2010, Froese and Di Paolo, 2010), who maintain that the results of the experiment corroborate the claim that interaction can play a constitutive role in social cognition. We disagree that the results of the experiment support this claim, and defend the more moderate interpretation that the role of interaction in this experiment is best conceived as that of providing scaffolding for social judgments and thereby simplifying the tasks performed by the individual participants.     

Heidegger's Early Critique of Husserl

This paper examines Heidegger's critique of Husserl in its earliest extant formulation, viz. the lecture courses Ontologie from 1923 and Einführung in die phänomenologische Forschung from 1923/4. Commentators frequently ignore these lectures, but I try to show that a study of them can reveal both the extent to which Heidegger remains committed to phenomenological research in something like its Husserlian form, and when and why Heidegger must part with Husserl. More specifically, I claim that Heidegger rightly criticizes Husserl's account of 'equipmental objects', and that he is especially unsatisfied with the terminology in which Husserl presents his phenomenological analyses, not only of 'equipment', but of other types of entities as well. However, it will also emerge that Heidegger's own phenomenological work presupposes the performance of what Husserl calls the 'epoch 7 ', the method of 'bracketing' natural knowledge. In this way, Heidegger's sometimes very severe critique must be understood as an internal critique.     

Five weeks of immersive reminiscence therapy improves autobiographical memory in Alzheimer’s disease

ABSTRACT

We examined the effects of a new Immersive Reminiscence Therapy (IRT) programme on cognitive function, including autobiographical memory, in a sample Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients. A total of 43 AD patients with mild to moderate disease severity were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (n?=?22, MMMSE?=?20.77), or a control group (n?=?21, MMMSE?=?19.24). The intervention group received one weekly group-based session of IRT for five weeks in an authentic 1950s style museum environment, matching the time of the participants’ youth. IRT included semi-structured conversations about the past. The control group received standard care. We assessed performance on cognitive function and autobiographical memory at baseline and post-intervention. Five weeks of IRT enhanced subsequent autobiographical memory performance, when participants were cued by concrete objects dated to their youth. Object-cued memories reported post intervention included a significantly higher degree of episodic details and higher word counts. The intervention showed no effect on the Autobiographical Memory Interview or word-cued recall. Global cognitive function and semantic autobiographical memory performance increased across time for both groups. Our findings demonstrate that immersion into a setting, rich on concrete cues dated to the participants’ youth can improve autobiographical remembering.     

Rethinking Other Minds: Wittgenstein and Levinas on Expression

One reason why the problem of other minds keeps cropping up in modern philosophy is that we seem to have conflicting intuitions about our access to the mental lives of others. On the one hand, we are inclined to think that it is wrong to claim, like Cartesian dualists must, that the minds of others are essentially inaccessible to direct experience. But on the other hand we feel that it is equally wrong to claim, like the behaviorists, that the mental lives of others are completely accessible to an outside spectator. This paper attempts to address the problem of the accessibility of other minds while staying faithful to both these intuitions. Central to this undertaking is the idea that we express our mental lives in our bodily behavior. With a firm grasp of the notion of expression, as it is developed in the writings of Wittgenstein and Levinas, we can understand how other minds can be directly perceivable and yet retain a certain inaccessibility. The key is to emphasize the difference between the expressive appearance of a human being and the way an object appears in perception.     

Optimizing subjective measures of consciousness

Dienes and Seth (2010) conclude that confidence ratings and post-decision wagering are two comparable and recommendable measures of conscious experience. In a recently submitted paper, we have however found that both methods are problematic and seem less suited to measure consciousness than a direct introspective measure.Here, we discuss the methodology and conclusions put forward by Dienes and Seth, and why we think the two experiments end up with so different recommendations.     

Unravelling intention: Distal intentions increase the subjective sense of agency

Experimental studies investigating the contribution of conscious intention to the generation of a sense of agency for one’s own actions tend to rely upon a narrow definition of intention. Often it is operationalized as the conscious sensation of wanting to move right before movement. Existing results and discussion are therefore missing crucial aspects of intentions, namely intention as the conscious sensation of wanting to move in advance of the movement. In the present experiment we used an intentional binding paradigm, in which we distinguished between immediate (proximal) intention, as usually investigated, and longer standing (distal) intention. The results showed that the binding effect was significantly enhanced for distal intentions compared to proximal intentions, indicating that the former leads to stronger sense of agency. Our finding provides empirical support for a crucial distinction between at least two types of intention when addressing the efficacy of conscious intentions.     

Confounding Factors in Contrastive Analysis

Several authors within psychology, neuroscience and philosophy take for granted that standard empirical research techniques are applicable when studying consciousness. In this article, it is discussed whether one of the key methods in cognitive neuroscience – the contrastive analysis – suffers from any serious confounding when applied to the field of consciousness studies; that is to say, if there are any systematic difficulties when studying consciousness with this method that make the results untrustworthy. Through an analysis of theoretical arguments in favour of using contrastive analysis, combined with analyses of empirical findings, I conclude by arguing for three factors that currently are confounding of research using contrastive analysis. These are (1) unconscious processes, (2) introspective reports, and (3) attention.