The threshold of awareness as an empirical given and as a logical inevitability

Affiliation:
St Petersburg University
Institute of Human Brain named after N.P. Bekhterev, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Journal name

Psikhologicheskii zhurnal

Edition

Volume 42 Issue 6

Pages

14-24

Abstract

The nature of the sensory threshold and approaches to solving the threshold problem in psychophysics are discussed. There were presented experimental results, empirical facts that do not fully correspond to existing psychophysical theories and do not receive an explanation in line with modern approaches. It was concluded that the explanation of the thresholds without description of the participation of consciousness raises doubts. A new look at the nature of thresholds is proposed, in which the threshold is considered as an inevitable consequence of the processes of classification and categorization. Due to the fact that the operations of identification of the non-identical and discernment of the indiscernible are mandatoryin the act of cognition, a zone is formed, within which objectively different elements are identified in consciousness andrelate to the same class. This zone exists across the entire spectrum of cognitive tasks, including detection and discrimination. Thresholds fix the boundaries of this zone. Thus, the problem of the threshold requires a description of the work of not so physiological as cognitive mechanismsfor its solution.

Keywords

consciousness, threshold, methods of psychophysics, unconscious signals, classification

Publication date

16.12.2021

Number of characters

35228

Cite

GOST	Allakhverdov V., Karpinskaya V. The threshold of awareness as an empirical given and as a logical inevitability // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal – 2021. – V. 42. – Issue 6 C. 14-24 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://psy.jes.su/S020595920017743-3-1 (circulation date: 08.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S020595920017743-3
MLA	Allakhverdov, V. M., Karpinskaya, V. Yu "The threshold of awareness as an empirical given and as a logical inevitability." Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 42.6 (2021):14-24. DOI: 10.31857/S020595920017743-3
APA	Allakhverdov V., Karpinskaya V. (2021). The threshold of awareness as an empirical given and as a logical inevitability. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 42(6), pp.14-24 DOI: 10.31857/S020595920017743-3

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 607

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Allahverdov V.M. Opyt teoreticheskoj psihologii (v zhanre nauchnoj revoljucii). SPb.: Pechatnyj dvor, 1993. (In Russian)

2. Allahverdov V.M. Soznanie kak paradoks (Jeksperimental'naja psihologika, t.1).St. Petersburg: DNK, 2000. (In Russian)

3. Allahverdov V.M., Gershkovich V.A., Karpinskaja V.Ju., Moroshkina N.V., Naumenko O.V., Tuhtieva N.H., Filippova M.G. Jevristicheskij potencial koncepcii Ja.A. Ponomareva. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2015. V. 36. № 6. P. 24–34. (In Russian)

4. Asmolov A.G., Mihalevskaja M.B. Ot psihofiziki chistyh oshhushhenij k psihofizike sensornyh zadach. Problemy i metody psihofiziki. Moscow: MGU, 1974. P. 5–12. (In Russian)

5. Barabanshhikov V.A. Dinamika vosprijatija vyrazhenij lica. Moscow: Kogito-centr, 2016. (In Russian)

6. Bardin K.V. Gorbacheva T.P. Ispol'zovanie nabljudatelem akusticheskih i modal'no-nespecificheskih priznakov zvuchanija dlja razlichenija sluhovyh signalov. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 1983. №4. P. 48–57. (In Russian)

7. Behterev V.M. Gipnoz, vnushenie, telepatija. Moscow: Mysl', 1994. (In Russian)

8. Vertgejmer M. O geshtal'tteorii. Hrestomatija po istorii psihologii. Eds.: P.Ja. Gal'perin, A.N. Zhdan. Moscow: Izd-vo moskovskogo universiteta, 1980. P. 84–97. (In Russian)

9. Vladykina N.P. O zakonomernostjah raboty soznanija v zone nerazlichenija. Vestnik SPbGU. Serija 12. 2008. №2. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-zakonomernostyah-raboty-soznaniya-v-zone-nerazlicheniya (data obrashhenija: 17.04.2020). (In Russian)

10. Gal'perin P.Ja. Vvedenie v psihologiju. Moscow: MGU, 1976. (In Russian)

11. Gerbart I.F. Psihologija. Moscow: Territorija budushhego, 2007.

12. Gershkovich V.A., Falikman M.V. Kognitivnaja psihologija v poiskah sebja. Rossijskij zhurnal kognitivnoj nauki. V. 5. № 4. 2018. P. 28–46. (In Russian)

13. Gibson Dzh. Dzh. Jekologicheskij podhod k zritel'nomu vosprijatiju. Moscow: Progress, 1988. (In Russian)

14. Gojan I.N., Aljaev G.E. Ideja odushevlenija vselennoj v jempiricheskoj metafizike HІH veka (Gustav Teodor Fehner). PhilosophyandCosmology. 2015. V. 14. 256–271. (In Russian)

15. Gusev A.N. Psihofizika sensornyh zadach. Sistemno-dejatel'nostnyj analiz povedenija cheloveka v situacii neopredelennosti. Moscow: MGU, 2004. (In Russian)

16. Karcevskij S. Ob asimmetrichnom dualizme lingvisticheskogo znaka. Zvegincev V. A. Istorija jazykoznanija XIX— XX vv. v ocherkah i izvlechenijah. Ch. 2. Moscow: Prosveshhenie, 1965.S. 85–90. (In Russian)

17. Kogan A.I. Issledovanie kriteriev ocenki zritel'noj rabotosposobnosti. Jergonomika. Tr. VNIITJe. №2. Moscow, 1971. (In Russian)

18. Mihalevskaja M.B. Porog i porogovaja zona. Sensornye i sensomotornye processy. Moscw: Pedagogika, 1972. P. 54–60. (In Russian)

19. Mihalevskaja M.B. Ob#ektivnaja sensometrija po reakcii blokady al'fa-ritma //Psihofizicheskie issledovanija vosprijatija i pamjati. Moscw: Nauka, 1981. P. 92–117. (In Russian)

20. Rassel B. Deskripcii. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. XIII. Logika i lingvistika (problemy referencii). Moscw, 1982. P. 41−54. (In Russian)

21. Skotnikova I.G. Vklad K.V. Bardina v razvitie psihofiziki. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2000. V. 21. № 6. P. 75–80. (In Russian)

22. Frit K. Mozg i dusha. Kak fiziologija formiruet nash vnutrennij mir. Moscow: CORPUS, 2010. (In Russian)

23. Chuprikova N.I. Vozmozhnye istochniki reakcij lozhnoj trevogi i psihofiziologicheskie mehanizmy optimizacii processa obnaruzhenija slabyh signalov. Psihofizika sensornyh sistem. Moscw: Nauka, 1979. P. 121–126. (In Russian)

24. Carpenter J., Sherman M.T., Kievit R.A., Seth A.K., Lau H., Fleming S.M. Domain-general enhance-ments of metacognitive ability through adaptive training. Journal of experimental psychology. General. 2019. 148(1). P. 51–64.

25. Fechner G.T. Elements of Psychophysics, V. 1. N. Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

26. Hanci D., Altun H.Hunger state affects both olfactory abilities and gustatory sensitivity.. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016. Vol. 273. P. 1637–1641.

27. KarpinskaiaV., Shoshina I., Shilov Y. Threshold for detecting a signal in an ambiguous figure//42nd edition of the European Conference on Visual Perception, Leuven, Belgium from August 25th – 29th. 2019. Abstract book. P. 639.

28. Leibovich T., Cohen N., Henik A.Itsy bitsy spider?: Valence and self-relevance predict size estimation. Biological psychology. 2016. Vol. 121. P. 138–145.

29. Pöppel E.Grenzen des Bewuβtsein. WiekommenwirzurZeit und wieentstehtWirklichkeit? Frankfurt a. M., Leipzig, 2000.

30. Reed G.F. Preparatory set as a factor in the production of sensory deprivation phenomena. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1962. Vol. 55 (12). P. 1010–1014.

31. Rogers B.J. Perception: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, 2017.

32. Rouder J.N., Morey R.D. The nature of psychological thresholds. Psychological Review. 2009.Vol. 116. No. 3. P. 655– 660.

33. Sato W., Kochiyama T., Minemoto K., Sawada R., Fushiki T.Amygdala activation during unconscious visual processing of food. Scientific reports.2019. Vol. 9(1). 7277.

34. Seow T., FlemingS.M.Perceptual sensitivity is modulated by what others can see //Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019. Vol. 81.P. 1979–1990.

35. Tinsley J.N., Molodtsov M.I., Prevedel R., Wartmann D., Espigulé-Pons J., Lauwers M., Vaziri A.Direct detection of a single photon by humans. Nature Communications. 2016. Vol. 7. P. 1−9.

36. Shiah Y., Tam W. Dohumanfingers “see”?—“Finger-reading” studies in the East and West. European Journal of Parapsychology. 2005. Vol. 20 (2). P. 117–134.