Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator
10,784
edits
Difference between revisions of "Store:QLMen10"
no edit summary
Gianfranco (talk | contribs) (Created page with "==5. Modeling of the process of sensation–perception within indirect measurement scheme== Foundations of theory of ''unconscious inference'' for the formation of visual impressions were set in 19th century by H. von Helmholtz. Although von Helmholtz studied mainly visual sensation–perception, he also applied his theory for other senses up to culmination in theory of social unconscious inference. By von Helmholtz here are two stages of the cognitive process, and they...") |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* Perception is something to be interpreted as a preference or selective attention, etc. | * Perception is something to be interpreted as a preference or selective attention, etc. | ||
In the scheme of indirect measurement, sensations represent the states of the sensation system of human and the perception system plays the role of the measurement apparatus . The unitary operator describes the process of interaction between the sensation and perception states. This quantum modeling of the process of sensation–perception was presented in paper (Khrennikov, 2015) with application to bistable perception and experimental data from article (Asano et al., 2014). | In the scheme of indirect measurement, sensations represent the states of the sensation system of human and the perception system plays the role of the measurement apparatus . The unitary operator describes the process of interaction between the sensation and perception states. This quantum modeling of the process of sensation–perception was presented in paper (Khrennikov, 2015)<ref>Khrennikov A. | ||
A quantum-like model of unconscious-conscious dynamics | |||
Front. Psychol., 6 (2015), Article 997 Google Scholar</ref> with application to bistable perception and experimental data from article (Asano et al., 2014).<ref>Asano M., Khrennikov A., Ohya M., Tanaka Y., Yamato I. Violation of contextual generalization of the leggett-garg inequality for recognition of ambiguous figures. Phys. Scripta T, 163 (2014), Article 014006. Google Scholar</ref> | |||
==6. Modeling of cognitive effects== | ==6. Modeling of cognitive effects== | ||
In cognitive and social science, the following opinion pool is known as the basic example of the order effect. This is the Clinton–Gore opinion pool (Moore, 2002). In this experiment, American citizens were asked one question at a time, e.g., | In cognitive and social science, the following opinion pool is known as the basic example of the order effect. This is the Clinton–Gore opinion pool (Moore, 2002).<ref>Moore D.W. Measuring new types of question-order effects | ||
Public Opin. Quart., 60 (2002), pp. 80-91.Google Scholar</ref> In this experiment, American citizens were asked one question at a time, e.g., | |||
:<math>A=</math> “Is Bill Clinton honest and trustworthy?” | :<math>A=</math> “Is Bill Clinton honest and trustworthy?” | ||
:<math>B=</math> “Is Al Gore honest and trustworthy?” | :<math>B=</math> “Is Al Gore honest and trustworthy?” | ||
| Line 20: | Line 26: | ||
where <math>\Omega</math> is a sample space <math>P</math> and is a probability measure. | where <math>\Omega</math> is a sample space <math>P</math> and is a probability measure. | ||
QOE stimulates application of the QP-calculus to cognition, see paper (Wang and Busemeyer, 2013). The authors of this paper stressed that noncommutative feature of joint probabilities can be modeled by using noncommutativity of incompatible quantum observables <math>A,B</math> represented by Hermitian operators <math>\widehat{A},\widehat{B}</math> . Observable <math>A</math> represents the Clinton-question and observable <math>B</math> represents Gore-question. In this model, QOE is identical incompatibility–noncommutativity of observables: | QOE stimulates application of the QP-calculus to cognition, see paper (Wang and Busemeyer, 2013).<ref>Wang Z., Busemeyer J.R. A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. Top. Cogn. Sci., 5 (2013), pp. 689-710</ref> The authors of this paper stressed that noncommutative feature of joint probabilities can be modeled by using noncommutativity of incompatible quantum observables <math>A,B</math> represented by Hermitian operators <math>\widehat{A},\widehat{B}</math> . Observable <math>A</math> represents the Clinton-question and observable <math>B</math> represents Gore-question. In this model, QOE is identical incompatibility–noncommutativity of observables: | ||
<math>[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]\neq0</math> | <math>[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]\neq0</math> | ||