Difference between revisions of "Is attention to Intention Fact or artifact"

m (no more tweaking needed)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
[[listing section::attention]]
[[listing section::attention]]


<call smw.let.var key=lead-in>Lau et al. (2004) aimed to identify through fMRI the brain region that codes for the intention to perform a motor act, and concluded that the pre-Supplementary Motor Area is where this happens. Machado and Silva’s account (2007) for these results is similar to previous attempts (Bridgeman, 1985; Gomes, 2002) to interpret Libet’s original data (Libet et al., 1983). To the extent of our knowledge, however, such accounts have never been subjected to empirical test. Our objective with this paper was to provide such a test.</call>
[[lead-in::Lau et al. (2004) aimed to identify through fMRI the brain region that codes for the intention to perform a motor act, and concluded that the pre-Supplementary Motor Area is where this happens. Machado and Silva’s account (2007) for these results is similar to previous attempts (Bridgeman, 1985; Gomes, 2002) to interpret Libet’s original data (Libet et al., 1983). To the extent of our knowledge, however, such accounts have never been subjected to empirical test. Our objective with this paper was to provide such a test.]]
</hide><exec mod=psycrit func=Show_Response_Header />
 
</hide>{{page/spec/response}}
==Full Text==
(showing 1st page)[[File:SmithMachado.Lau.et.al 2008.pdf]]

Latest revision as of 14:15, 25 July 2020


  • Title: Attention to Intention: Fact or artifact?
  • Author(s): André Marques-Smith, Armando Machado
  • Date: 1 September 2008
  • Keyname: 2008-09-01-Marques-Smith
  • Responds to: Attention to Intention
  • Lead-in: Lau et al. (2004) aimed to identify through fMRI the brain region that codes for the intention to perform a motor act, and concluded that the pre-Supplementary Motor Area is where this happens. Machado and Silva’s account (2007) for these results is similar to previous attempts (Bridgeman, 1985; Gomes, 2002) to interpret Libet’s original data (Libet et al., 1983). To the extent of our knowledge, however, such accounts have never been subjected to empirical test. Our objective with this paper was to provide such a test.

no responses found

Full Text

(showing 1st page)SmithMachado.Lau.et.al 2008.pdf

Retrieved from "https://psycrit.com/w/index.php?title=Is_attention_to_Intention_Fact_or_artifact&oldid=2685"
... more about "Is attention to Intention Fact or artifact"
RDF feed
Author
André Marques-Smith +  and Armando Machado +
Author/ref
Marques-Smith +
Keyname
2008-09-01-Marques-Smith +
Lead-in
Lau et al. (2004) aimed to identify throug … Lau et al. (2004) aimed to identify through fMRI the brain region that codes for the intention to perform a motor act, and concluded that the pre-Supplementary Motor Area is where this happens. Machado and Silva’s account (2007) for these results is similar to previous attempts (Bridgeman, 1985; Gomes, 2002) to interpret Libet’s original data (Libet et al., 1983). To the extent of our knowledge, however, such accounts have never been subjected to empirical test. Our objective with this paper was to provide such a test.ith this paper was to provide such a test. +
Listing section
Attention +
Page type
Spec/response +
Responds to
2004-Lau +
Title
Attention to Intention: Fact or artifact? +
Date"Date" is a type and predefined property provided by Semantic MediaWiki to represent date values.
September 1, 2008 +