We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
An improved understanding of risky decision-making in sleep-deprived persons could have important real-world consequences. Traditional expectation-based models assume that individuals integrate information across outcomes and probabilities. Neuroeconomic studies that seek to understand the neural mechanisms underlying economic decision-making often target a particular decision variable, incorporate that variable into a model function, manipulate the level of that variable across a range of stimuli, and then identify aspects of brain function that track changes in that variable. Separating decision and outcome phases in the imaging analysis could also be important as sleep deprivation (SD) might interact with task context and feedback to influence neural responses and behavior. The shifts in economic preferences in the multiple outcome gambling experiment as well as relative valuation for social and monetary stimuli were independent of the effects of SD on psychomotor vigilance, consistent with the suggestion that effects of SD vary according to cognitive domain.
This chapter considers three distinct but related classes of evidence: behavioral studies, neuroimaging, and brain-damaged patient case studies. It discusses recent advances in the study of implicit perception, considering the ways in which they do and do not improve on earlier approaches. The chapter highlights claims for implicit perceptual or semantic processing of discrete stimuli, largely overlooking implicit skill learning, artificial grammar learning, or other forms of procedural knowledge that might well be acquired without awareness. It also considers recent arguments about how best to study implicit perception. Claims for and against implicit perception received extensive empirical attention starting in the late 1950s, with sentiment in the field vacillating between acceptance and skepticism. Finally, the chapter discusses how qualitative differences in the nature of perceptual processing may be of theoretical significance even without a clear demonstration that processing occurs entirely outside of awareness.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.