Space and time in perceptual causality.
Inferring causality is a fundamental feature of human cognition that allows us to theorize about and predict future states of the world. Michotte suggested that humans automatically perceive causality based on certain perceptual features of events. However, individual differences in judgments of perceptual causality cast doubt on Michotte's view. To gain insights in the neural basis of individual difference in the perception of causality, our participants judged causal relationships in animations of a blue ball colliding with a red ball (a launching event) while fMRI-data were acquired. Spatial continuity and temporal contiguity were varied parametrically in these stimuli. We did not find consistent brain activation differences between trials judged as caused and those judged as non-caused, making it unlikely that humans have universal instantiation of perceptual causality in the brain. However, participants were slower to respond to and showed greater neural activity for violations of causality, suggesting that humans are biased to expect causal relationships when moving objects appear to interact. Our participants demonstrated considerable individual differences in their sensitivity to spatial and temporal characteristics in perceiving causality. These qualitative differences in sensitivity to time or space in perceiving causality were instantiated in individual differences in activation of the left basal ganglia or right parietal lobe, respectively. Thus, the perception that the movement of one object causes the movement of another is triggered by elemental spatial and temporal sensitivities, which themselves are instantiated in specific distinct neural networks.
Straube
Benjamin
B
Department of Neurology and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Chatterjee
Anjan
A
Mem Cognit. 1993 Nov;21(6):785-801
8289656
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2008 Apr;18(2):137-44
18692573
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Jun;24(1):41-7
15922156
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003 Apr;13(2):250-5
12744981
Brain Res. 2006 Mar 3;1076(1):150-62
16473338
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2008 Apr;18(2):145-52
18708142
Can J Psychol. 1968 Oct;22(5):399-407
5724482
Nature. 2009 May 28;459(7246):506
19478764
Can J Psychol. 1959 Sep;13:155-68
14434584
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2006 Sep-Oct;123(1-2):1-19
16860283
Neuroimage. 2006 Oct 15;33(1):391-8
16935007
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1992 Feb;44(2):321-42
1565803
Neuropsychologia. 2008 Jan 31;46(2):704-13
18023824
J Neurosci. 1999 Nov 1;19(21):9480-96
10531451
Cognition. 1987 Apr;25(3):265-88
3581732
Science. 2007 Mar 30;315(5820):1860-2
17395832
Neuropsychology. 2005 Sep;19(5):591-602
16187877
Neuroreport. 2001 Dec 4;12(17):3741-6
11726785
Neurosci Lett. 2005 May 20-27;380(1-2):138-42
15854766
Neuropsychologia. 2009 Aug;47(10):2133-44
19375433
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003 Jul;17(2):248-54
12880896
Cereb Cortex. 2003 Aug;13(8):837-44
12853370
Neuroimage. 2007 Jul 1;36(3):511-21
17499520
Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jun;4(6):651-5
11369948
J Exp Psychol. 1957 Feb;53(2):89-93
13406186
Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Aug;30(8):2367-81
19034897
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2006 Sep-Oct;123(1-2):112-43
16908002
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Aug;4(8):299-309
10904254
Perception. 1982;11(2):173-86
7155770
J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Nov;12(6):988-1000
11177419
Percept Psychophys. 2003 Jul;65(5):789-800
12956586