Abstract
A central question about the human mind is whether perception is an encapsulated process driven purely by sensory information or whether it is intricately linked with cognitive processes. This debate about the cognitive penetrability of perception is discussed in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy. Thus far, the debate has centred on vision, without major attempts to examine other senses. In this Review, we provide an overview of the key empirical evidence about cognitive penetrability of perception in vision, audition, somatosensation (including proprioception and pain perception), vestibular perception and chemosensation (gustation, chemesthesis and olfaction). We conclude that many (but not all) of the senses are cognitively penetrable. Specifically, cognitive penetrability seems to vary with the extent to which a sense is intrinsically multimodal, the extent to which it receives indirect cognitive influences, and whether hedonic evaluation is an integral aspect of the perceptual experience. We suggest that the debate about cognitive penetrability needs to be more differentiated with respect to the sensory modality of the perceptual experience and the diversity of cognitive influences on that modality.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$59.00 per year
only $4.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cermeño-Aínsa, S. The cognitive penetrability of perception: a blocked debate and a tentative solution. Conscious. Cogn. 77, 102838 (2020).
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. Cognition does not affect perception: evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behav. Brain Sci. 39, e229 (2016).
Lupyan, G. Cognitive penetrability of perception in the age of prediction: predictive systems are penetrable systems. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 6, 547–569 (2015).
Macpherson, F. Cognitive penetration of colour experience: rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 84, 24–62 (2012).
Newen, A. & Vetter, P. Why cognitive penetration of our perceptual experience is still the most plausible account. Conscious. Cogn. 47, 26–37 (2017).
O’Callaghan, C., Kveraga, K., Shine, J. M., Adams, R. B. & Bar, M. Predictions penetrate perception: converging insights from brain, behaviour and disorder. Conscious. Cogn. 47, 63–74 (2017).
Raftopoulos, A. The cognitive impenetrability of the content of early vision is a necessary and sufficient condition for purely nonconceptual content. Philos. Psychol. 27, 601–620 (2014).
Stokes, D. Thinking and Perceiving: on the Malleability of the Mind (Routledge, 2021).
Vetter, P. & Newen, A. Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. Conscious. Cogn. 27, 62–75 (2014).
Block, N. The Border between Seeing and Thinking (Oxford University Press, 2023).
Fodor, J. A. The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology (MIT Press, 1983).
Pylyshyn, Z. Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 341–365 (1999).
Zeki, S. A century of cerebral achromatopsia. Brain 113, 1721–1777 (1990).
Lueck, C. J. et al. The colour centre in the cerebral cortex of man. Nature 340, 386–389 (1989).
Cristofori, I., Cohen-Zimerman, S. & Grafman, J. Executive functions. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 163, 197–219 (2019).
Lamme, V. A. F. Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 12–18 (2003).
Clark, A. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 181–204 (2013).
Teufel, C. & Nanay, B. How to (and how not to) think about top-down influences on visual perception. Conscious. Cogn. 47, 17–25 (2017).
Markov, N. T. et al. Cortical high-density counterstream architectures. Science 342, 1238406 (2013).
Gilbert, C. D. & Li, W. Top-down influences on visual processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 350–363 (2013). This paper is a review of different types of top-down influence in vision and how cortical feedback pathways exert these influences.
Hochstein, S. & Ahissar, M. View from the top: hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron 36, 791–804 (2002).
Kietzmann, T. C. et al. Recurrence is required to capture the representational dynamics of the human visual system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 21854–21863 (2019).
Lamme, V. A. & Roelfsema, P. R. The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends Neurosci. 23, 571–579 (2000).
Siu, C., Balsor, J., Merlin, S., Federer, F. & Angelucci, A. A direct interareal feedback-to-feedforward circuit in primate visual cortex. Nat. Commun. 12, 4911 (2021).
Gregory, R. L. Seeing Through Illusions (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Cavanagh, P. et al. The architecture of object-based attention. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 30, 1643–1667 (2023).
Carrasco, M. & Barbot, A. Spatial attention alters visual appearance. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 29, 56–64 (2019).
Pearson, J. The human imagination: the cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 20, 624–634 (2019).
Girshick, A. R., Landy, M. S. & Simoncelli, E. P. Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 926–932 (2011).
Badde, S. & Heed, T. The hands’ default location guides tactile spatial selectivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2209680120 (2023).
Badde, S., Röder, B. & Heed, T. Feeling a touch to the hand on the foot. Curr. Biol. 29, 1491–1497.e4 (2019).
Green, C. S., Banai, K., Lu, Z. & Bavelier, D. In: Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (ed. Wixted, J. T.) 1–47 (Wiley, 2018).
Phelps, E. A. Emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 27–53 (2006).
Salmela, M. Can emotion be modelled on perception? Dialectica 65, 1–29 (2011).
Niedenthal, P. M. & Wood, A. Does emotion influence visual perception? Depends on how you look at it. Cogn. Emot. 33, 77–84 (2019).
Choi, I., Lee, J.-Y. & Lee, S.-H. Bottom-up and top-down modulation of multisensory integration. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 52, 115–122 (2018).
Murray, M. M. & Wallace, M. T. The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, 2012).
Lupyan, G. & Spivey, M. J. Making the invisible visible: verbal but not visual cues enhance visual detection. PLoS ONE 5, e11452 (2010).
Lupyan, G. & Ward, E. J. Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14196–14201 (2013).
Chen, Y.-C. & Spence, C. When hearing the bark helps to identify the dog: semantically-congruent sounds modulate the identification of masked pictures. Cognition 114, 389–404 (2010).
Chen, Y.-C. & Spence, C. Crossmodal semantic priming by naturalistic sounds and spoken words enhances visual sensitivity. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 37, 1554–1568 (2011).
Teufel, C., Dakin, S. C. & Fletcher, P. C. Prior object-knowledge sharpens properties of early visual feature-detectors. Sci. Rep. 8, 10853 (2018).
Samaha, J., Boutonnet, B., Postle, B. R. & Lupyan, G. Effects of meaningfulness on perception: alpha-band oscillations carry perceptual expectations and influence early visual responses. Sci. Rep. 8, 6606 (2018).
Berger, C. C. & Ehrsson, H. H. The content of imagined sounds changes visual motion perception in the cross-bounce illusion. Sci. Rep. 7, 40123 (2017).
Yuval-Greenberg, S. & Heeger, D. J. Continuous flash suppression modulates cortical activity in early visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 33, 9635–9643 (2013).
Mathôt, S. Tuning the senses: how the pupil shapes vision at the earliest stage. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 6, 433–451 (2020).
Binda, P., Pereverzeva, M. & Murray, S. O. Pupil constrictions to photographs of the sun. J. Vis. 13, 8 (2013).
Castellotti, S., Conti, M., Feitosa-Santana, C. & Del Viva, M. M. Pupillary response to representations of light in paintings. J. Vis. 20, 14 (2020).
Naber, M. & Nakayama, K. Pupil responses to high-level image content. J. Vis. 13, 7 (2013).
Mathôt, S., Grainger, J. & Strijkers, K. Pupillary responses to words that convey a sense of brightness or darkness. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1116–1124 (2017).
Laeng, B. & Sulutvedt, U. The eye pupil adjusts to imaginary light. Psychol. Sci. 25, 188–197 (2014).
Hustá, C., Dalmaijer, E., Belopolsky, A. & Mathôt, S. The pupillary light response reflects visual working memory content. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 45, 1522–1528 (2019).
Xie, W. & Zhang, W. Pupillary evidence reveals the influence of conceptual association on brightness perception. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 30, 1388–1395 (2023).
Peelen, M. V. & Downing, P. E. Testing cognitive theories with multivariate pattern analysis of neuroimaging data. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 1430–1441 (2023).
Kay, K., Bonnen, K., Denison, R. N., Arcaro, M. J. & Barack, D. L. Tasks and their role in visual neuroscience. Neuron 111, 1697–1713 (2023). This paper provides an overview of the diverse ways in which tasks influence visual processing.
Uithol, S., Bryant, K. L., Toni, I. & Mars, R. B. The anticipatory and task-driven nature of visual perception. Cereb. Cortex 31, 5354–5362 (2021).
Harel, A., Kravitz, D. J. & Baker, C. I. Task context impacts visual object processing differentially across the cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E962–E971 (2014).
Çukur, T., Nishimoto, S., Huth, A. G. & Gallant, J. L. Attention during natural vision warps semantic representation across the human brain. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 763–770 (2013).
Kay, K. & Yeatman, J. D. Bottom-up and top-down computations in word- and face-selective cortex. eLife 6, e22341 (2017).
White, A. L., Kay, K., Tang, K. A. & Yeatman, J. D. Engaging in word recognition elicits highly specific modulations in visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 33, 1308–1320.e5 (2023).
Hebart, M. N., Bankson, B. B., Harel, A., Baker, C. I. & Cichy, R. M. The representational dynamics of task and object processing in humans. eLife 7, e32816 (2018).
Breedlove, J. L., St-Yves, G., Olman, C. A. & Naselaris, T. Generative feedback explains distinct brain activity codes for seen and mental images. Curr. Biol. 30, 2211–2224.e6 (2020).
Bannert, M. M. & Bartels, A. Decoding the yellow of a gray banana. Curr. Biol. 23, 2268–2272 (2013).
Kok, P., Jehee, J. F. M. & de Lange, F. P. Less is more: expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex. Neuron 75, 265–270 (2012).
Favila, S. E., Kuhl, B. A. & Winawer, J. Perception and memory have distinct spatial tuning properties in human visual cortex. Nat. Commun. 13, 5864 (2022).
Yan, C., de Lange, F. P. & Richter, D. Conceptual associations generate sensory predictions. J. Neurosci. 43, 3733–3742 (2023).
Harrison, S. A. & Tong, F. Decoding reveals the contents of visual working memory in early visual areas. Nature 458, 632–635 (2009).
Rademaker, R. L., Chunharas, C. & Serences, J. T. Coexisting representations of sensory and mnemonic information in human visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1336–1344 (2019).
Gutteling, T. P. et al. Action preparation shapes processing in early visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 35, 6472–6480 (2015).
Yon, D., Gilbert, S. J., de Lange, F. P. & Press, C. Action sharpens sensory representations of expected outcomes. Nat. Commun. 9, 4288 (2018).
Monaco, S., Gallivan, J. P., Figley, T. D., Singhal, A. & Culham, J. C. Recruitment of foveal retinotopic cortex during haptic exploration of shapes and actions in the dark. J. Neurosci. 37, 11572–11591 (2017).
de Haas, B., Schwarzkopf, D. S., Urner, M. & Rees, G. Auditory modulation of visual stimulus encoding in human retinotopic cortex. NeuroImage 70, 258–267 (2013).
Vetter, P., Smith, F. W. & Muckli, L. Decoding sound and imagery content in early visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 24, 1256–1262 (2014).
Petro, L. S., Vizioli, L. & Muckli, L. Contributions of cortical feedback to sensory processing in primary visual cortex. Front. Psychol. 5, 1223 (2014).
Wyatte, D., Jilk, D. J. & O’Reilly, R. C. Early recurrent feedback facilitates visual object recognition under challenging conditions. Front. Psychol. 5, 674 (2014).
Bashford, J. A. & Warren, R. M. Multiple phonemic restorations follow the rules for auditory induction. Percept. Psychophys. 42, 114–121 (1987).
Samuel, A. Phoneme restoration. Lang. Cogn. Process. 11, 647–654 (1996).
Warren, R. M., Obusek, C. J. & Ackroff, J. M. Auditory induction: perceptual synthesis of absent sounds. Science 176, 1149–1151 (1972).
Ciocca, V. & Bregman, A. S. Perceived continuity of gliding and steady-state tones through interrupting noise. Percept. Psychophys. 42, 476–484 (1987).
Lyzenga, J., Carlyon, R. P. & Moore, B. C. J. Dynamic aspects of the continuity illusion: perception of level and of the depth, rate, and phase of modulation. Hear. Res. 210, 30–41 (2005).
Cervantes Constantino, F. & Simon, J. Z. Dynamic cortical representations of perceptual filling-in for missing acoustic rhythm. Sci. Rep. 7, 17536 (2017).
Riecke, L. et al. Recalibration of the auditory continuity illusion: sensory and decisional effects. Hear. Res. 277, 152–162 (2011).
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R. & Scott, S. K. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang. Cogn. Process. 27, 953–978 (2012). This paper is a review of the role of prediction, at all levels, in perception of speech.
Gwilliams, L., Linzen, T., Poeppel, D. & Marantz, A. In spoken word recognition, the future predicts the past. J. Neurosci. 38, 7585–7599 (2018).
Ganong, W. F. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 6, 110–125 (1980).
Freyman, R. L., Morse-Fortier, C. & Griffin, A. M. Temporal effects in priming of masked and degraded speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, 1418–1427 (2015).
Sheldon, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K. & Schneider, B. A. Priming and sentence context support listening to noise-vocoded speech by younger and older adults. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 489–499 (2008).
Guediche, S., Reilly, M., Santiago, C., Laurent, P. & Blumstein, S. E. An fMRI study investigating effects of conceptually related sentences on the perception of degraded speech. Cortex 79, 57–74 (2016).
Cummings, A. et al. Auditory semantic networks for words and natural sounds. Brain Res. 1115, 92–107 (2006).
Orgs, G., Lange, K., Dombrowski, J.-H. & Heil, M. Conceptual priming for environmental sounds and words: an ERP study. Brain Cogn. 62, 267–272 (2006).
Frey, A., Aramaki, M. & Besson, M. Conceptual priming for realistic auditory scenes and for auditory words. Brain Cogn. 84, 141–152 (2014).
Maye, J., Aslin, R. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K. The weckud wetch of the wast: lexical adaptation to a novel accent. Cogn. Sci. 32, 543–562 (2008).
Norris, D. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognit. Psychol. 47, 204–238 (2003).
Bradlow, A. R. & Bent, T. Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 106, 707–729 (2008).
Reinisch, E. & Holt, L. L. Lexically guided phonetic retuning of foreign-accented speech and its generalization. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 40, 539–555 (2014).
Xie, X. & Myers, E. B. Learning a talker or learning an accent: acoustic similarity constrains generalization of foreign accent adaptation to new talkers. J. Mem. Lang. 97, 30–46 (2017).
Trude, A. M. & Brown-Schmidt, S. Talker-specific perceptual adaptation during online speech perception. Lang. Cogn. Process. 27, 979–1001 (2012).
Agus, T. R. & Pressnitzer, D. Repetition detection and rapid auditory learning for stochastic tone clouds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 150, 1735–1749 (2021).
Herrmann, B., Araz, K. & Johnsrude, I. S. Sustained neural activity correlates with rapid perceptual learning of auditory patterns. NeuroImage 238, 118238 (2021). This paper reports evidence for direct changes in neural coding acoustic inputs based on recent context.
Agus, T. R. & Pressnitzer, D. The detection of repetitions in noise before and after perceptual learning. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 464–473 (2013).
Ringer, H., Schröger, E. & Grimm, S. Perceptual learning of random acoustic patterns: impact of temporal regularity and attention. Eur. J. Neurosci. 57, 2112–2135 (2023).
Bianco, R. et al. Long-term implicit memory for sequential auditory patterns in humans. eLife 9, e56073 (2020).
Heinrich, A., Carlyon, R. P., Davis, M. H. & Johnsrude, I. S. Illusory vowels resulting from perceptual continuity: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 1737–1752 (2008).
Heinrich, A., Carlyon, R. P., Davis, M. H. & Johnsrude, I. S. The continuity illusion does not depend on attentional state: fMRI evidence from illusory vowels. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 2675–2689 (2011).
Shahin, A. J., Bishop, C. W. & Miller, L. M. Neural mechanisms for illusory filling-in of degraded speech. NeuroImage 44, 1133–1143 (2009).
Riecke, L., Esposito, F., Bonte, M. & Formisano, E. Hearing illusory sounds in noise: the timing of sensory-perceptual transformations in auditory cortex. Neuron 64, 550–561 (2009).
Hannemann, R., Obleser, J. & Eulitz, C. Top-down knowledge supports the retrieval of lexical information from degraded speech. Brain Res. 1153, 134–143 (2007).
Baltzell, L. S., Srinivasan, R. & Richards, V. M. The effect of prior knowledge and intelligibility on the cortical entrainment response to speech. J. Neurophysiol. 118, 3144–3151 (2017). This paper reports neural evidence that previous inputs alter coding of subsequent speech.
Banellis, L., Sokoliuk, R., Wild, C. J., Bowman, H. & Cruse, D. Event-related potentials reflect prediction errors and pop-out during comprehension of degraded speech. Neurosci. Conscious. 2020, niaa022 (2020).
Yi, H. G., Leonard, M. K. & Chang, E. F. The encoding of speech sounds in the superior temporal gyrus. Neuron 102, 1096–1110 (2019).
Sohoglu, E., Peelle, J. E., Carlyon, R. P. & Davis, M. H. Predictive top-down integration of prior knowledge during speech perception. J. Neurosci. 32, 8443–8453 (2012).
Leonard, M. K., Baud, M. O., Sjerps, M. J. & Chang, E. F. Perceptual restoration of masked speech in human cortex. Nat. Commun. 7, 13619 (2016).
Lim, S.-J., Fiez, J. A. & Holt, L. L. Role of the striatum in incidental learning of sound categories. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4671–4680 (2019).
Lim, S. & Holt, L. L. Learning foreign sounds in an alien world: videogame training improves non‐native speech categorization. Cogn. Sci. 35, 1390–1405 (2011).
Ley, A. et al. Learning of new sound categories shapes neural response patterns in human auditory cortex. J. Neurosci. 32, 13273–13280 (2012).
Fritz, J. B., Elhilali, M., David, S. V. & Shamma, S. A. Auditory attention — focusing the searchlight on sound. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 17, 437–455 (2007).
Maddox, R. K. & Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. Influence of task-relevant and task-irrelevant feature continuity on selective auditory attention. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 13, 119–129 (2012).
Noyce, A. L., Cestero, N., Michalka, S. W., Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. & Somers, D. C. Sensory-biased and multiple-demand processing in human lateral frontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 37, 8755–8766 (2017).
Larson, E. & Lee, A. K. C. Switching auditory attention using spatial and non-spatial features recruits different cortical networks. NeuroImage 84, 681–687 (2014).
Michalka, S. W., Rosen, M. L., Kong, L., Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. & Somers, D. C. Auditory spatial coding flexibly recruits anterior, but not posterior, visuotopic parietal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 26, 1302–1308 (2016).
Hill, K. T. & Miller, L. M. Auditory attentional control and selection during cocktail party listening. Cereb. Cortex 20, 583–590 (2010).
Michalka, S. W., Kong, L., Rosen, M. L., Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. & Somers, D. C. Short-term memory for space and time flexibly recruit complementary sensory-biased frontal lobe attention networks. Neuron 87, 882–892 (2015).
Lee, A. K. C. et al. Auditory selective attention reveals preparatory activity in different cortical regions for selection based on source location and source pitch. Front. Neurosci. 6, 190 (2013).
Anourova, I. et al. Evidence for dissociation of spatial and nonspatial auditory information processing. NeuroImage 14, 1268–1277 (2001).
Anurova, I. et al. Differences between auditory evoked responses recorded during spatial and nonspatial working memory tasks. NeuroImage 20, 1181–1192 (2003).
Leavitt, V. M., Molholm, S., Gomez-Ramirez, M. & Foxe, J. J. “What” and “where” in auditory sensory processing: a high-density electrical mapping study of distinct neural processes underlying sound object recognition and sound localization. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 5, 23 (2011).
Fleming, J. T., Njoroge, J. M., Noyce, A. L., Perrachione, T. K. & Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. Sensory modality and information domain contribute jointly to dual-task interference between working memory and perceptual processing. Imaging Neurosci. 2, 1–22 (2024).
Shinn-Cunningham, B., Best, V. & Lee, A. K. C. In: The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party (eds Middlebrooks, J. C., Simon, J. Z., Popper, A. N. & Fay, R. R.) 60, 7–40 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).
Delhaye, B. P., Long, K. H. & Bensmaia, S. J. Neural basis of touch and proprioception in primate cortex. Compr. Physiol. 8, 1575–1602 (2018).
Badde, S., Navarro, K. T. & Landy, M. S. Modality-specific attention attenuates visual-tactile integration and recalibration effects by reducing prior expectations of a common source for vision and touch. Cognition 197, 104170 (2020).
Samad, M. & Shams, L. Visual–somatotopic interactions in spatial perception. NeuroReport 27, 180–185 (2016).
Van Beers, R. J., Sittig, A. C. & Van Der Gon Denier, J. J. How humans combine simultaneous proprioceptive and visual position information. Exp. Brain Res. 111, 253–261 (1996).
Goldreich, D. A Bayesian perceptual model replicates the cutaneous rabbit and other tactile spatiotemporal illusions. PLoS ONE 2, e333 (2007).
Tajadura-Jiménez, A. et al. Action sounds recalibrate perceived tactile distance. Curr. Biol. 22, R516–R517 (2012).
Miller, L. E., Cawley-Bennett, A., Longo, M. R. & Saygin, A. P. The recalibration of tactile perception during tool use is body-part specific. Exp. Brain Res. 235, 2917–2926 (2017).
Markmann, M. et al. Hypnotic suggestions cognitively penetrate tactile perception through top-down modulation of semantic contents. Sci. Rep. 13, 6578 (2023). This paper is one of very few that directly probes cognitive penetrability of tactile perception, here by means of hypnotic suggestion.
Taylor-Clarke, M., Jacobsen, P. & Haggard, P. Keeping the world a constant size: object constancy in human touch. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 219–220 (2004).
Kennett, S., Taylor-Clarke, M. & Haggard, P. Noninformative vision improves the spatial resolution of touch in humans. Curr. Biol. 11, 1188–1191 (2001).
Haggard, P., Christakou, A. & Serino, A. Viewing the body modulates tactile receptive fields. Exp. Brain Res. 180, 187–193 (2007).
McGlone, F., Wessberg, J. & Olausson, H. Discriminative and affective touch: sensing and feeling. Neuron 82, 737–755 (2014).
McCabe, C., Rolls, E. T., Bilderbeck, A. & McGlone, F. Cognitive influences on the affective representation of touch and the sight of touch in the human brain. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 3, 97–108 (2008).
Ravaja, N., Harjunen, V., Ahmed, I., Jacucci, G. & Spapé, M. M. Feeling touched: emotional modulation of somatosensory potentials to interpersonal touch. Sci. Rep. 7, 40504 (2017).
Gazzola, V. et al. Primary somatosensory cortex discriminates affective significance in social touch. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E1657–E1666 (2012).
Case, L. K. et al. Encoding of touch intensity but not pleasantness in human primary somatosensory cortex. J. Neurosci. 36, 5850–5860 (2016).
Botvinick, M. & Cohen, J. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 756 (1998).
Holle, H., McLatchie, N., Maurer, S. & Ward, J. Proprioceptive drift without illusions of ownership for rotated hands in the “rubber hand illusion” paradigm. Cogn. Neurosci. 2, 171–178 (2011).
Rohde, M., Di Luca, M. & Ernst, M. O. The rubber hand illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS ONE 6, e21659 (2011).
Dempsey-Jones, H. & Kritikos, A. Higher-order cognitive factors affect subjective but not proprioceptive aspects of self-representation in the rubber hand illusion. Conscious. Cogn. 26, 74–89 (2014).
Brunyé, T. T. et al. The fabric of thought: priming tactile properties during reading influences direct tactile perception. Cogn. Sci. 36, 1449–1467 (2012).
Metzger, A. & Drewing, K. Memory influences haptic perception of softness. Sci. Rep. 9, 14383 (2019).
Klatzky, R. L. & Lederman, S. J. Identifying objects from a haptic glance. Percept. Psychophys. 57, 1111–1123 (1995).
Deshpande, G., Hu, X., Lacey, S., Stilla, R. & Sathian, K. Object familiarity modulates effective connectivity during haptic shape perception. NeuroImage 49, 1991–2000 (2010).
Kaptchuk, T. J. & Miller, F. G. Placebo effects in medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 8–9 (2015).
Ellingsen, D.-M. et al. Placebo improves pleasure and pain through opposite modulation of sensory processing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 17993–17998 (2013).
Wager, T. D. et al. Placebo-induced changes in fMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science 303, 1162–1167 (2004).
Zunhammer, M. et al. Meta-analysis of neural systems underlying placebo analgesia from individual participant fMRI data. Nat. Commun. 12, 1391 (2021).
Wager, T. D. & Atlas, L. Y. The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 16, 403–418 (2015). This review focuses on physiological correlates of placebo effects as well as the cognitive and non-cognitive processes behind these effects.
Fetsch, C. R., Turner, A. H., DeAngelis, G. C. & Angelaki, D. E. Dynamic reweighting of visual and vestibular cues during self-motion perception. J. Neurosci. 29, 15601–15612 (2009).
Mittelstaedt, H. The role of the otoliths in perception of the vertical and in path integration. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 871, 334–344 (1999).
Zu Eulenburg, P., Caspers, S., Roski, C. & Eickhoff, S. B. Meta-analytical definition and functional connectivity of the human vestibular cortex. NeuroImage 60, 162–169 (2012).
Guldin, W. O. & Grüsser, O.-J. Is there a vestibular cortex? Trends Neurosci. 21, 254–259 (1998).
Lopez, C. & Blanke, O. The thalamocortical vestibular system in animals and humans. Brain Res. Rev. 67, 119–146 (2011).
Gurvich, C., Maller, J. J., Lithgow, B., Haghgooie, S. & Kulkarni, J. Vestibular insights into cognition and psychiatry. Brain Res. 1537, 244–259 (2013).
Besnard, S., Lopez, C., Brandt, T., Denise, P. & Smith, P. F. Editorial: the vestibular system in cognitive and memory processes in mammalians. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 9, 55 (2015).
Smith, P. F. The vestibular system and cognition. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 30, 84–89 (2017). This paper summarizes the contribution of the vestibular system to high-level cognition, extending beyond reflexes, posture and gaze orientation.
Ferrè, E. R. & Haggard, P. Vestibular cognition: state-of-the-art and future directions. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 37, 413–420 (2020).
Hitier, M., Besnard, S. & Smith, P. F. Vestibular pathways involved in cognition. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 8, 59 (2014).
Guerraz, M., Thilo, K. V., Bronstein, A. M. & Gresty, M. A. Influence of action and expectation on visual control of posture. Cogn. Brain Res. 11, 259–266 (2001).
Kim, J. Head movements suggest canal and otolith projections are activated during galvanic vestibular stimulation. Neuroscience 253, 416–425 (2013).
Goldberg, J. M., Smith, C. E. & Fernández, C. Relation between discharge regularity and responses to externally applied galvanic currents in vestibular nerve afferents of the squirrel monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 51, 1236–1256 (1984).
Fitzpatrick, R. C. & Day, B. L. Probing the human vestibular system with galvanic stimulation. J. Appl. Physiol. 96, 2301–2316 (2004).
Gallagher, M., Romano, F., Bockisch, C. J., Ferrè, E. R. & Bertolini, G. Quantifying virtual self-motion sensations induced by galvanic vestibular stimulation. J. Vestib. Res. Equilib. Orientat. 33, 21–30 (2023).
Guerraz, M. & Day, B. L. Expectation and the vestibular control of balance. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 463–469 (2005).
Yardley, L. Interference between postural control and mental task performance in patients with vestibular disorder and healthy controls. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 71, 48–52 (2001).
Pellecchia, G. L. Postural sway increases with attentional demands of concurrent cognitive task. Gait Posture 18, 29–34 (2003).
Vuillerme, N., Nougier, V. & Teasdale, N. Effects of a reaction time task on postural control in humans. Neurosci. Lett. 291, 77–80 (2000).
Hunter, M. C. & Hoffman, M. A. Postural control: visual and cognitive manipulations. Gait Posture 13, 41–48 (2001).
Lim, J. & Johnson, M. B. Potential mechanisms of retronasal odor referral to the mouth. Chem. Senses 36, 283–289 (2011).
Stevenson, R. J., Mahmut, M. K. & Oaten, M. J. The role of attention in the localization of odors to the mouth. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73, 247–258 (2011).
Spence, C. The tongue map and the spatial modulation of taste perception. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 5, 598–610 (2022).
Chaudhari, N. & Roper, S. D. The cell biology of taste. J. Cell Biol. 190, 285–296 (2010).
Sclafani, A. Post-ingestive positive controls of ingestive behavior. Appetite 36, 79–83 (2001).
Stein, L. J., Nagai, H., Nakagawa, M. & Beauchamp, G. K. Effects of repeated exposure and health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptance of a bitter beverage. Appetite 40, 119–129 (2003).
Garcia-Burgos, D. & Zamora, M. C. Exploring the hedonic and incentive properties in preferences for bitter foods via self-reports, facial expressions and instrumental behaviours. Food Qual. Prefer. 39, 73–81 (2015).
Khorisantono, P. A. et al. Dissociable effects of hunger, exposure and sensory overlap on flavour liking. Food Qual. Prefer. 119, 105211 (2024).
Spence, C. Just how much of what we taste derives from the sense of smell? Flavour 4, 30 (2015).
Dalton, P., Doolittle, N., Nagata, H. & Breslin, P. A. The merging of the senses: integration of subthreshold taste and smell. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 431–432 (2000).
Djordjevic, J. Effects of perceived and imagined odors on taste detection. Chem. Senses 29, 199–208 (2004).
Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Verlegh, P. W. J. The role of congruency and pleasantness in odor-induced taste enhancement. Acta Psychol. 94, 87–105 (1996). This paper reports a classic study that illustrates influences of learned associations on odour-induced taste enhancement.
Stevenson, R. J. Confusing tastes and smells: how odours can influence the perception of sweet and sour tastes. Chem. Senses 24, 627–635 (1999).
Grabenhorst, F., Rolls, E. T. & Bilderbeck, A. How cognition modulates affective responses to taste and flavor: top-down influences on the orbitofrontal and pregenual cingulate cortices. Cereb. Cortex 18, 1549–1559 (2008).
Grabenhorst, F. & Rolls, E. T. Selective attention to affective value alters how the brain processes taste stimuli. Eur. J. Neurosci. 27, 723–729 (2008).
Liem, D. G., Miremadi, F., Zandstra, E. H. & Keast, R. S. Health labelling can influence taste perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products. Public Health Nutr. 15, 2340–2347 (2012).
Chikazoe, J., Lee, D. H., Kriegeskorte, N. & Anderson, A. K. Distinct representations of basic taste qualities in human gustatory cortex. Nat. Commun. 10, 1048 (2019).
Crouzet, S. M., Busch, N. A. & Ohla, K. Taste quality decoding parallels taste sensations. Curr. Biol. 25, 890–896 (2015).
Porcu, E. et al. Macroscopic information-based taste representations in insular cortex are shaped by stimulus concentration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 7409–7417 (2020).
Nolden, A. A. & Hayes, J. E. Perceptual and affective responses to sampled capsaicin differ by reported intake. Food Qual. Prefer. 55, 26–34 (2017).
Hunter, S. R., Beatty, C. & Dalton, P. H. More spice, less salt: how capsaicin affects liking for and perceived saltiness of foods in people with smell loss. Appetite 190, 107032 (2023).
Cowart, B. J. Oral chemical irritation: does it reduce perceived taste intensity? Chem. Senses 12, 467–479 (1987).
Lawless, H. & Stevens, D. Effects of oral chemical irritation on taste. Physiol. Behav. 32, 995–998 (1984).
Prescott, J., Allen, S. & Stephens, L. Interactions between oral chemical irritation, taste and temperature. Chem. Senses 18, 389–404 (1993).
Hamazaki, T., Kaneda, M., Zhang, J., Kaneko, S. & Kajimoto, H. In: 2022 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS) 1–6 (IEEE, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2022).
Petit, C. E. F., Hollowood, T. A., Wulfert, F. & Hort, J. Colour–coolant–aroma interactions and the impact of congruency and exposure on flavour perception. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 880–889 (2007).
Tu, Y., Yang, Z. & Ma, C. The taste of plate: how the spiciness of food is affected by the color of the plate used to serve it. J. Sens. Stud. 31, 50–60 (2016).
Pellegrino, R. & Luckett, C. R. The effect of odor and color on chemical cooling. Food Qual. Prefer. 75, 118–123 (2019).
Casillas, M., Rafiee, A. & Majid, A. Iranian herbalists, but not cooks, are better at naming odors than laypeople. Cogn. Sci. 43, e12763 (2019).
Olofsson, J. K. et al. A designated odor–language integration system in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 34, 14864–14873 (2014).
Lee, B. K. et al. A principal odor map unifies diverse tasks in olfactory perception. Science 381, 999–1006 (2023).
Howard, J. D., Plailly, J., Grueschow, M., Haynes, J.-D. & Gottfried, J. A. Odor quality coding and categorization in human posterior piriform cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 932–938 (2009).
Sagar, V., Shanahan, L. K., Zelano, C. M., Gottfried, J. A. & Kahnt, T. High-precision mapping reveals the structure of odor coding in the human brain. Nat. Neurosci. 26, 1595–1602 (2023).
Gottfried, J. A., Winston, J. S. & Dolan, R. J. Dissociable codes of odor quality and odorant structure in human piriform cortex. Neuron 49, 467–479 (2006).
De Araujo, I. E., Rolls, E. T., Velazco, M. I., Margot, C. & Cayeux, I. Cognitive modulation of olfactory processing. Neuron 46, 671–679 (2005).
Djordjevic, J. et al. A rose by any other name: would it smell as sweet? J. Neurophysiol. 99, 386–393 (2008).
Herz, R. S. & von Clef, J. The influence of verbal labeling on the perception of odors: evidence for olfactory illusions? Perception 30, 381–391 (2001). This paper reports a classic study illustrating cognitive influences on odour identity perception.
Herz, R. S. The effect of verbal context on olfactory perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132, 595–606 (2003).
Dematte, M. L., Sanabria, D. & Spence, C. Olfactory discrimination: when vision matters? Chem. Senses 34, 103–109 (2008).
Morrot, G., Brochet, F. & Dubourdieu, D. The color of odors. Brain Lang. 79, 309–320 (2001).
Seo, H.-S. & Hummel, T. Auditory–olfactory integration: congruent or pleasant sounds amplify odor pleasantness. Chem. Senses 36, 301–309 (2011).
Shanahan, L. K., Bhutani, S. & Kahnt, T. Olfactory perceptual decision-making is biased by motivational state. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001374 (2021).
Zelano, C., Mohanty, A. & Gottfried, J. A. Olfactory predictive codes and stimulus templates in piriform cortex. Neuron 72, 178–187 (2011).
Zhou, G. et al. Human olfactory-auditory integration requires phase synchrony between sensory cortices. Nat. Commun. 10, 1168 (2019).
Hiratani, N. & Latham, P. E. Rapid Bayesian learning in the mammalian olfactory system. Nat. Commun. 11, 3845 (2020).
Pierzchajlo, S. & Olofsson, J. K. In: Sensory Individuals (eds Mroczko-Wąsowicz, A. & Grush, R.) 209–224 (Oxford University Press, 2023). This is a review of cognitive influences on olfaction.
Lundström, J. N., Regenbogen, C., Ohla, K. & Seubert, J. Prefrontal control over occipital responses to crossmodal overlap varies across the congruency spectrum. Cereb. Cortex 29, 3023–3033 (2019).
Porada, D. K., Regenbogen, C., Seubert, J., Freiherr, J. & Lundström, J. N. Multisensory enhancement of odor object processing in primary olfactory cortex. Neuroscience 418, 254–265 (2019).
Pashkovski, S. L. et al. Structure and flexibility in cortical representations of odour space. Nature 583, 253–258 (2020).
Wilson, D. A., Fleming, G., Vervoordt, S. M. & Coureaud, G. Cortical processing of configurally perceived odor mixtures. Brain Res. 1729, 146617 (2020).
Frederick, D. E. et al. Gamma and beta oscillations define a sequence of neurocognitive modes present in odor processing. J. Neurosci. 36, 7750–7767 (2016).
Iravani, B. et al. Odor identity can be extracted from the reciprocal connectivity between olfactory bulb and piriform cortex in humans. NeuroImage 237, 118130 (2021).
Stevenson, R. J. Flavor binding: its nature and cause. Psychol. Bull. 140, 487–510 (2014). This review addresses the phenomenon of perceptual binding between the chemical senses and discusses cortical regulation of the emerging shared percept.
Shankar, M. et al. An expectations-based approach to explaining the cross-modal influence of color on orthonasal olfactory identification: the influence of the degree of discrepancy. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 1981–1993 (2010).
Wilson, C. D., Serrano, G. O., Koulakov, A. A. & Rinberg, D. A primacy code for odor identity. Nat. Commun. 8, 1477 (2017).
Wilson, D. A. & Stevenson, R. J. The fundamental role of memory in olfactory perception. Trends Neurosci. 26, 243–247 (2003).
de Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M. & Kok, P. How do expectations shape perception? Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 764–779 (2018). This paper discusses how prior expectations modulate perception and sensory processing in the light of Bayesian models of perception.
Badde, S., Myers, C. F., Yuval-Greenberg, S. & Carrasco, M. Oculomotor freezing reflects tactile temporal expectation and aids tactile perception. Nat. Commun. 11, 3341 (2020).
Van Ede, F., Jensen, O. & Maris, E. Tactile expectation modulates pre-stimulus β-band oscillations in human sensorimotor cortex. NeuroImage 51, 867–876 (2010).
Walsh, K. S., McGovern, D. P., Clark, A. & O’Connell, R. G. Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1464, 242–268 (2020).
Angelaki, D. E. & Cullen, K. E. Vestibular system: the many facets of a multimodal sense. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 125–150 (2008).
Spence, C. & Bayne, T. In: Perception and Its Modalities (eds Stokes, D., Matthen, M. & Biggs, S.) (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Yeshurun, Y. & Sobel, N. An odor is not worth a thousand words: from multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61, 219–241 (2010).
Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, 1966).
Badde, S. et al. Sensory experience during early sensitive periods shapes cross-modal temporal biases. eLife 9, e61238 (2020).
Gallagher, R. M., Suddendorf, T. & Arnold, D. H. Confidence as a diagnostic tool for perceptual aftereffects. Sci. Rep. 9, 7124 (2019).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a PRIMA grant (PR00P1_185918/1) from the Swiss National Science Foundation to P.V. J.S. has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement n° 947886).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Alexis Perez Bellido, Charles Spence and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Vetter, P., Badde, S., Ferrè, E.R. et al. Evaluating cognitive penetrability of perception across the senses. Nat Rev Psychol 3, 804–820 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00382-1
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00382-1
