1,987 publications from this institution
Abstract Ever since their discovery, mirror neurons have generated much interest and debate. A commonly held view of mirror neuron function is that they transform “visual information into knowledge,” thus enabling action understanding and non-verbal social communication between con-specifics (Rizzolatti & Craighero 2004). This functionality is thought to be so important that it has been argued that mirror neurons must be a result of selective pressure.
A major debate in the field of consciousness pertains to whether neuronal activity or rather the causal structure of neural circuits underlie the generation of conscious experience. The former position is held by theoretical accounts of consciousness based on the predictive processing framework (such as neurorepresentationalism and active inference), while the latter is posited by the integrated information theory. This protocol describes an experiment, part of a larger adversarial collaboration, that was designed to address this question through a combination of behavioral tests in mice, functional imaging, patterned optogenetics and electrophysiology. The experiment will directly test if optogenetic inactivation of a portion of the visual cortex not responding to behaviorally relevant stimuli will affect the perception of the spatial distribution of these stimuli, even when the neurons being inactivated display no or very low spiking activity, so low that it does not induce a significant effect on other cortical areas. The results of the experiment will be compared against theoretical predictions, and will provide a major contribution towards understanding what the neuronal substrate of consciousness is.
This dataset includes skin conductance response (SCR) and pulse time stamp (HB) measurements for each of 60 healthy unmedicated participants (30 males and 30 females aged 23.7 +/- 4.8 years) in response to the 45 most arousing negative, and 45 least arousing neutral IAPS pictures, each presented for 1 s each, while listening to regular or random distractor sounds, as described in Bach et al. (2015). ITI was selected randomly on each trial from 7.65 s, 9 s, or 10.35 s. The experiment was preceded by a 2-minute resting period and divided into 3 blocks, separated by resting periods. Each resting period begins and ends with an event marker in the psychophysiological recordings.