kerblooee.bsky.social
Cognitive neuroscientist, mom, citizen of the world. Interested in mental imagery extremes and divergent perception.
The "Ganzflicker Lady"
https://reshannereeder.com
163 posts
489 followers
405 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Hmm looks like it's been taken down!
comment in response to
post
But is VVIQ test-retest reliability good among pre- and post-discovered aphantasics?
comment in response to
post
This coming from a zapping professional :-)
comment in response to
post
But what if I want to zap brains?
comment in response to
post
I had to Google what tFUS is... at first I thought "this is so cool", but my impression is that bc it might actually have some effect on brain tissue, it might not ever be used for non-clinical studies... what do you think?
comment in response to
post
I bet bc all of these brain areas are used for other things, "zapping" just 1 will likely not do much. It would be interesting to "zap" different parts of the network while people do imagery tasks to see what happens 😛
comment in response to
post
No they are not naive, which I think is one of the weaknesses of the study... would the question still classify naive aphantasics?
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately science is not funded very well, and it's very rare for participants to receive money for a large scale study like this. It's not a job, research participation is always voluntary & it's ethical as long as participants are aware and they know what will be expected of them.
comment in response to
post
I was at an NSync concert at the time Britney and Justin were dating, and she brushed past me in the aisle. Then later that same concert, the boys were on a raised platform and Joey Fatone leaned over with his mic and a waterfall of sweat came out the front of his shirt and landed on my head.
comment in response to
post
It's possible that certain passages are chatgpt-generated. For example, 4 of the fake references all appear in the same paragraph, and the writing surrounding the references (e.g., "X studied the involvement of...") must have been generated by chatgpt (bc the study does not exist):
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately probably not a bug, but created by chatgpt:
bsky.app/profile/kerb...
comment in response to
post
I see this in student work all the time, when the text & references are generated by ChatGPT...
comment in response to
post
The paper shows that imagery is "strong enough" to be indistinguishable from (weak) perception sometimes. In study 2, about half of participants were convinced they saw a stimulus when they were just imagining it. And these were "typical" imagers, not hyperphantasics.
comment in response to
post
It doesn't have to be done first - it's already fine in parallel. Most people can catch a ball without being able to explain how they did it. The phenomenology of imagery is one of many aspects of it that should be explored, but in the meantime, we're gonna keep studying people catching balls
comment in response to
post
So you're basically saying all the psychological/neuroscientific imagery research that has been done is meaningless?
comment in response to
post
In which case, typical is just the experience reported by the most people.
comment in response to
post
We don't have to define typical imagery first (or else everyone would be talking in circles like we are now). We can give imagery-naive participants a replicated/ validated measure (PSI-Q is my fave) and define typical post-hoc as a range that overlaps the mean/median/mode in the normal distribution
comment in response to
post
"...when virtual or imagined signals are strong enough, they become subjectively indistinguishable from reality."
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
comment in response to
post
What is the evidence that imagery is involved in bistable image switching, aside from your own intuition? I have data from >9,000 individuals (unfortunately not yet allowed to share) showing virtually 0 relationship between bistable switching and imagery ability or vividness.
comment in response to
post
I go through it with them instead of (or on top of) a questionnaire. It's clearer in an interview. I have interview transcripts & documents detailing the structure of my interviews on OSF here:
osf.io/v7krh/
And here:
osf.io/hyefp/
comment in response to
post
More here:
online.ucpress.edu/collabra/art...
comment in response to
post
I don't compare other people's experience to my own though, I compare it to the 150-or-so interviews I've compiled (summary of 126 of them here):
youtu.be/8zyiKCVZ4Xs?...
comment in response to
post
I see lots of researchers taking their own personal experience as a kind of "baseline experience" or "ground truth", but you can't do that with individual differences... this is where I think lots of people get stuck
comment in response to
post
And it's not like they only come up with that after being probed- it "appears" as a cohesive image. I know this has been a whole debate, but if 2 ppl have v different experiences (aphantasia, imagery), it is difficult (some cases impossible) to imagine the other's experience...
comment in response to
post
From the youtube video, you seem to be calling this aphantasia-like experience (tail goes here, trunk goes here, etc) the quasi-sensory experience, is that correct? Bc ppl with imagery do have a "visual-seeming" experience on top of that (there's color, wrinkles, expressions, etc)...
comment in response to
post
And the scientific article:
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
comment in response to
post
I want to do an "ig nobel" study of hyperphantasics visualising their way to climax, which is apparently something they can do, and I can't imagine how it could be done without very realistic imagery:
www.wired.com/2007/01/expl...
comment in response to
post
Nanay claims that all amodal completion is done via projected imagery. Weirdly, I have some (not yet published) data suggesting some role of imagery, with (naive) aphantasics claiming to be less able to see partially occluded animals as complete. Whether this requires projection is yet to be tested
comment in response to
post
I hear ya...
comment in response to
post
Naw, it's too expensive for me these days, but I'm going to ECVP - will you be there by any chance?
comment in response to
post
"It's always very, very real."
My impression is that, most of the time, they know it's not a hallucination. But if they let their imagination run away with them, it could start to become that. There is a fuzzier boundary between imagination and reality in hyperphantasia.
comment in response to
post
I think it is bizarre for most people, but hyperphantasics say:
"the thing in my head is the same as the thing out there"
"My imagination is so vivid, it goes beyond... [hand moving upwards and outwards from body]"
"I had this real visual imagery in this very real physical experience..."
comment in response to
post
The phrasing is from Zeman et al, 2015 (see screenshot of what they sent out to individuals - note also the spelling error of 'perfectly'). This difference was news to me! I also have problems with using the VVIQ to 'diagnose' aphantasia - I have many of the same criticisms as Marks on that!
comment in response to
post
My lab is embedded in the Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience research group:
www.liverpool.ac.uk/population-h...
We have access to various EEGs (128ch, 64ch, mobile) +BioSemi physiological measures, eyetracking/pupillometry, tACS/tDCS, & VR