Abstract
Inferring causality is a fundamental feature of human cognition that allows us to theorize about and predict future states of the world. Michotte suggested that humans automatically perceive causality based on certain perceptual features of events. However, individual differences in judgments of perceptual causality cast doubt on Michotte's view. To gain insights in the neural basis of individual difference in the perception of causality, our participants judged causal relationships in animations of a blue ball colliding with a red ball (a launching event) while fMRI-data were acquired. Spatial continuity and temporal contiguity were varied parametrically in these stimuli. We did not find consistent brain activation differences between trials judged as caused and those judged as non-caused, making it unlikely that humans have universal instantiation of perceptual causality in the brain. However, participants were slower to respond to and showed greater neural activity for violations of causality, suggesting that humans are biased to expect causal relationships when moving objects appear to interact. Our participants demonstrated considerable individual differences in their sensitivity to spatial and temporal characteristics in perceiving causality. These qualitative differences in sensitivity to time or space in perceiving causality were instantiated in individual differences in activation of the left basal ganglia or right parietal lobe, respectively. Thus, the perception that the movement of one object causes the movement of another is triggered by elemental spatial and temporal sensitivities, which themselves are instantiated in specific distinct neural networks.
Highlights
Inferring cause and effect is central to our understanding of the physical world
Our study investigated the neural basis of the perception of causality with attention to individual differences in how spatial and temporal characteristics predict causality judgments
We found bilateral occipito-parietal and frontal brain activation in response to ball movements, which is consistent with previous literature about movement perception (e.g., Billino et al, 2009), the perception of launching events (Blakemore et al, 2001) and extraction of specific movement parameters in event perception (e.g., Zacks et al, 2001, 2006; Zacks, 2004)
Summary
Inferring cause and effect is central to our understanding of the physical world. This ability is critical in predicting future states and may be a fundamental feature that differentiates humans from animals and primates. Wolpert suggests that causal thinking underlies the development of complex tools and subsequent advantages in evolutional natural selection followed by a host of unique human achievements (see Wolpert, 2006 or Wolpert, 2009). Hume argued that our concept of causality must arise from repeated experiences and associated relationships. He believed that sensory events could not give rise directly to the experience of causality, and rejected the possibility of causal perception
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
