Background: The possibility of predicting random future events before any sensory clues by using human physiology as a dependent variable has been supported by the meta- analysis of Mossbridge et al. (2012)1 and recent findings by Tressoldi et al. (2011 and 2013) and Mossbridge et al. (2014) defined this phenomenon predictive anticipatory activity (PAA). Aim of the study: From a theoretical point of view, one interesting question is whether PAA is related to the effective, real future presentation of these stimuli or whether it is related only to the probability of their presentation. Methods: This hypothesis was tested with four experiments, two using heart rate and two using pupil dilation as dependent variables. Results: In all four experiments, both a neutral stimulus and a potentially threatening stimulus were predicted 7–10% above chance, independently from whether the predicted threatening stimulus was presented or not. Conclusion: These findings are discussed with reference to the “grandfather paradox,” and some candidate explanations for this phenomena are presented.

Does Psychophysiological Predictive Anticipatory Activity Predict Real or Future Probable Events?

TRESSOLDI, PATRIZIO;MARTINELLI, MASSIMILIANO;SEMENZATO, LUCA;GONELLA, ALESSANDRO
2015

Abstract

Background: The possibility of predicting random future events before any sensory clues by using human physiology as a dependent variable has been supported by the meta- analysis of Mossbridge et al. (2012)1 and recent findings by Tressoldi et al. (2011 and 2013) and Mossbridge et al. (2014) defined this phenomenon predictive anticipatory activity (PAA). Aim of the study: From a theoretical point of view, one interesting question is whether PAA is related to the effective, real future presentation of these stimuli or whether it is related only to the probability of their presentation. Methods: This hypothesis was tested with four experiments, two using heart rate and two using pupil dilation as dependent variables. Results: In all four experiments, both a neutral stimulus and a potentially threatening stimulus were predicted 7–10% above chance, independently from whether the predicted threatening stimulus was presented or not. Conclusion: These findings are discussed with reference to the “grandfather paradox,” and some candidate explanations for this phenomena are presented.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11577/3144729
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact