Causality refers to the intricate relationship between two events A and B, where one follows as a consequence of the other. The former is termed as the cause and the latter Effect. Cause-Effect relationships are mostly related to events which include either change in state of affairs, objects, variables or properties. The phenomenon of causation, till date, remains the most effective manner in which we comprehend the visual experiences and reach to conclusions about things happening around us and thereby condition ourselves to predict future events. Given that the next question which has kept thinkers busy in the past is how do organisms determine these causal relationships or in others words how we attribute the idea of effect to a particular cause. One of the pioneer researchers in the field, David Hume proposed that there is no rational basis for determining the causality in objects [Hume Studies Volume 11, Issue 1]. It is only through continuous observations and several instances that we learn to determine the necessary connection which binds the cause to the effect. Over a period of time we simply become habitual of perceiving the consequent effect even if the cause is not prominently visible. Many philosophers, notably Kant, however have claimed that we cannot derive from experience the assurance of necessity and universality in causal relationships[P.F.Strawson, The Bounds of Sense]. In recent times, Albert Michotte (1946/1963) conducted a famous series of experiments to discover that causal judgement can be logically inferred through perceptual events than just being felt or habitually sensed. He prepared some videos which apparently simulated ball-to-ball collisions and then these videos were shown to people to see if they really infer that the second ball moves due to impact from the first ball. Through his experiments, he discovered a certain causal impression of the relation between successive events is formed. A physical instantiation, as denied by Hume, was observed.
MICHOTTE VIDEO
Previous studies and Research Area of the Paper
Individual differences raise a lot of doubt over the proposition that causality is directly inferred based on the situational inputs. A relationship was also observed between level of intelligence and type of response made to the films [Gemelli & Cappellini, 1958]. There have been experiments to show that, out of all the factors affecting causal perception, temporal delays and spatial violations tend to bring a change in individual judgments. To get an insight, various experiments have been done to procure variations associated with changes in behavioral and neurological processes accompanying causality. Though there have been previous researches to probe into the effect of temporal continuity, same is not the case with spatial connectivity. Mostly inter-particle contact had been looked at and not much focus was directed at considering the influence of directional changes on causation. In one of the studies though, it was reported that angular changes up to 90 deg are also usually inferred causal [Beasley,1968]. Until recently only behavioral differences were observed, however with advanced technology brain mapping techniques are being used to trace the neural firing patterns and thereby identify logical patterns to substantiate the idea of mechanically perceiving causality. The given paper continues this research with special emphasis on causal perception in case of changes in orientation of the second ball after it is apparently struck by Ball A. The experiments condcuted and the FMRI Data acquisition serve two fold purposes. Firstly, through FMRI data, the paper studies the underlying differences in perceptual processes in the brain during causal and non-causal associations. Secondly, it also investigates into the neural basis of causality judgment with reference to uniqueness in sensitivity to spatial and temporal violations in real-life events.
Cited from "Space and Time Perception in Causality( Straube and Anjan )
Results
Inconsistencies in activation across neural networks in causal and non-causal perception reject any idea of automatic inference of causality by any universal brain structures. In fact more amount of brain activation in case of non-causal conclusions imply that there is some expectancy effect in causal judgments, due to past experience, which makes non causality more taxing. However, Michottes view cannot be neglected since it has been observed that temporal and spatial delays stimulate different areas of the brain differently in individuals. This is a clear reinforcement to Michottes thesis that physical aspects of causation do count in overall impression formation and decision making apart from prior experiences. Some individuals are more sensitive to either of space or time as evident by activation of right parietal lobe or left basal ganglia respectively.
Cited from "Space and Time Perception in Causality( Straube and Anjan )
FMRI DATA
References
Straube and Anjan (2010). Space and Time Perception in Causality, Frontiers in human neuroscience
Beasley, N. A. (1968). The extent of individual differences in the perception of causality. Can. J. Psychol. 22(399,407).
Hume, D. (1748/1977). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Indianapolis: Hackett.
Michotte, A. E. (1946/1963). The Perception of Causality (Translated by T. R. Miles and E. Miles). London: Methue (Original published in 1946).
Gemelli, A., and Cappellini, A. (1958).The influence of the subject(s) attitude in perception. Acta Psychol. 14,(12,23).
Hume Studies Volume 11, Issue 1
