↓ Skip to main content

Why do you fear the bogeyman? An embodied predictive coding model of perceptual inference

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Why do you fear the bogeyman? An embodied predictive coding model of perceptual inference
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13415-013-0227-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Pezzulo

Abstract

Why are we scared by nonperceptual entities such as the bogeyman, and why does the bogeyman only visit us during the night? Why does hearing a window squeaking in the night suggest to us the unlikely idea of a thief or a killer? And why is this more likely to happen after watching a horror movie? To answer these and similar questions, we need to put mind and body together again and consider the embodied nature of perceptual and cognitive inference. Predictive coding provides a general framework for perceptual inference; I propose to extend it by including interoceptive and bodily information. The resulting embodied predictive coding inference permits one to compare alternative hypotheses (e.g., is the sound I hear generated by a thief or the wind?) using the same inferential scheme as in predictive coding, but using both sensory and interoceptive information as evidence, rather than just considering sensory events. If you hear a window squeaking in the night after watching a horror movie, you may consider plausible a very unlikely hypothesis (e.g., a thief, or even the bogeyman) because it explains both what you sense (e.g., the window squeaking in the night) and how you feel (e.g., your high heart rate). The good news is that the inference that I propose is fully rational and gives minds and bodies equal dignity. The bad news is that it also gives an embodiment to the bogeyman, and a reason to fear it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 147 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 17%
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 30 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 29%
Neuroscience 20 13%
Philosophy 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 46 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2022.
All research outputs
#5,038,850
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#233
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,452
of 315,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.