title: Postdiction: its implications on visual awareness, hindsight, and sense of agency.
abstract: There are a few postdictive perceptual phenomena known, in which a stimulus presented later seems causally to affect the percept of another stimulus presented earlier. While backward masking provides a classical example, the flash lag effect stimulates theorists with a variety of intriguing findings. The TMS-triggered scotoma together with "backward filling-in" of it offer a unique neuroscientific case. Findings suggest that various visual attributes are reorganized in a postdictive fashion to be consistent with each other, or to be consistent in a causality framework. In terms of the underlying mechanisms, four prototypical models have been considered: the "catch up," the "reentry," the "different pathway" and the "memory revision" models. By extending the list of postdictive phenomena to memory, sensory-motor and higher-level cognition, one may note that such a postdictive reconstruction may be a general principle of neural computation, ranging from milliseconds to months in a time scale, from local neuronal interactions to long-range connectivity, in the complex brain. The operational definition of the "postdictive phenomenon" can be applicable to such a wide range of sensory/cognitive effects across a wide range of time scale, even though the underlying neural mechanisms may vary across them. This has significant implications in interpreting "free will" and "sense of agency" in functional, psychophysical and neuroscientific terms.
authors.affiliation: Shimojo Psychophysics Laboratory, Division of Biology and Biological Engineering/Computation and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA, USA.
authors.forename: Shinsuke
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Shimojo
keywords: TMS; causality perception; flash lag; free will; hindsight; postdiction; sense of agency
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2001 Apr;107(1-3):209-28
references.pmid: 11388136
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2004 Dec;15(12):866-71
references.pmid: 15563333
references.citation: Perception. 2000;29(11):1279-90
references.pmid: 11219985
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Nov;142(4):1130-41
references.pmid: 23106303
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2008 Apr;31(2):179-98; discussion 198-239
references.pmid: 18479557
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2009 Dec 15;19(23):2003-7
references.pmid: 19896379
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2006 Mar;9(3):429-34
references.pmid: 16462737
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Dec;133(4):475-93
references.pmid: 15584802
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2003 Jun 17;13(12):1038-41
references.pmid: 12814549
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Sep;19(9):1488-97
references.pmid: 17714010
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2013 Jan 04;3:593
references.pmid: 23293625
references.citation: Science. 2000 Mar 17;287(5460):2036-8
references.pmid: 10720334
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 1998 Dec;1(8):656-7
references.pmid: 10196580
references.citation: Perception. 2006;35(3):385-99
references.pmid: 16619953
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2013 May 10;4:221
references.pmid: 23675360
references.citation: Science. 1975 Feb 28;187(4178):757-9
references.pmid: 1114322
references.citation: J Vis. 2007 Oct 30;7(13):13.1-15
references.pmid: 17997641
references.citation: Nature. 1997 Mar 6;386(6620):66-9
references.pmid: 9052780
references.citation: Am Psychol. 1999 Jul;54(7):480-92
references.pmid: 10424155
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 1992 Jan;15(1):20-5
references.pmid: 1374953
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Dec;129(4):481-507
references.pmid: 11142864
references.citation: Nature. 1994 Jul 28;370(6487):256-7
references.pmid: 8035873
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2012 Dec;23(12):1524-33
references.pmid: 23085643
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Jun 14;411(6839):798-801
references.pmid: 11459058
references.citation: Science. 1972 Oct 13;178(4057):178-9
references.pmid: 5076909
references.citation: Science. 2011 Jan 7;331(6013):83-7
references.pmid: 21212356
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2002 Mar 5;12(5):359-68
references.pmid: 11882286
references.citation: Vision Res. 1990;30(7):1069-75
references.pmid: 2392835
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Sep 1;6(9):387
references.pmid: 12200181
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 13;100(10):6275-80
references.pmid: 12719543
references.citation: Vision Res. 1976;16(4):329-35
references.pmid: 941407
references.citation: Science. 1988 May 6;240(4853):740-9
references.pmid: 3283936
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Jun;131(2):255-69
references.pmid: 12049243
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):106-20
references.pmid: 12669751
references.citation: Vision Res. 1982;22(8):1047-51
references.pmid: 7135841
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jan;14(1):28-30
references.pmid: 21131954
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 1999 Aug;2(8):767-71
references.pmid: 10412068
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2008 Apr 5;32(3):459-503
references.pmid: 21635343
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2013 Jan 23;33(4):1400-10
references.pmid: 23345216
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2000 May;3(5):489-95
references.pmid: 10769390
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2012 Sep;76(5):654-66
references.pmid: 21818621
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Mar 22;264(1380):393-9
references.pmid: 9107055