Clinical Neuroscience: A 5-Phase Multimodal Model of Perception and Perceptual Errors

Autores

  • Fabiano de Abreu Agrela Rodrigues

    Centro de Pesquisa e Análises Heráclito (CPAH)

    Autor

  • Alano Dourado Meneses

    Lawyer and Business Executive. Bachelor of Laws, Universidade Federal do Piauí (UFPI)

    Autor

  • Mirian Coden

    NORTUS, Institution for Human and Organizational Development, Scientific and Development Center, Brazi

    Autor

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66741/ca.2026.001
Resumo

Introduction: Several models of stimulus-response perception have been proposed in the neuroscientific literature; however, none has systematically integrated second-person neuroscience with the neuromaladaptive mechanisms, here defined as neural and cognitive patterns that deviate from adaptive functioning and impair environmental adjustment, that may emerge specifically in social interaction contexts.

Objective: To propose a multiscale theoretical framework for understanding cognitive function and behavior through the sequential phases of perceptual processing described in the 5-Phase Multimodal Model of Perception.

Methodology: This study constitutes a narrative theoretical review with structured literature search. Searches were conducted in PubMed and Web of Science using the terms "cognitive penetrability," "perceptual prediction error," "attention and perception," "interpersonal neural synchrony," and "inhibitory control," restricted to studies published between 2000 and 2024. Selection was based on theoretical relevance to the proposed model phases and was not intended as a systematic review with formal PRISMA screening. Results and Discussion: Existing cognitive models were integrated into a five-phase sequential framework combining theoretical synthesis with clinical observation.

Conclusion: The proposed model offers a preliminary theoretical account of how dysfunction in perceptual neurocognition subfunctions (here termed perceptual errors) may contribute to a range of maladaptive behavioral patterns. Empirical validation is required before clinical applications can be drawn.

Downloads
Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.
Referências

Akyüz, N., Barlas, Z., Kaçar, A., & Karşılar, H. (2024). Obedience induces agentic shifts by increasing the perceived time between own action and results. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 16769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66499-8

Anderson, B. A., Laurent, P. A., & Yantis, S. (2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(25), 10367–10371. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104047108

Brogaard, B., & Gatzia, D. E. (2017). Is color experience cognitively penetrable? Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(1), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12221

Brooks, J. A., & Freeman, J. B. (2019). Neuroimaging of person perception: A social-visual interface. Neuroscience Letters, 693, 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.12.046

Cecchi, A. S. (2018). Cognitive penetration of early vision in face perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 63, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.06.005

Chen, S., & Melara, R. D. (2009). Sequential effects in the Simon task: Conflict adaptation or feature integration? Brain Research, 1297, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.08.003

Chen, X., Jiang, Y., Pu, J., Chen, H., Tang, Y., Xu, P., & Wang, W. (2017). Within vs. between-subject effects of intranasal oxytocin on the neural response to cooperative and non-cooperative social interactions. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 78, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.01.006

Clark, A. (2016). Attention alters predictive processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, Article e234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002472

Cocchi, L., Zalesky, A., Fornito, A., & Mattingley, J. B. (2013). Dynamic cooperation and competition between brain systems during cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(10), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.08.006

Dickman, S. J., & Meyer, D. E. (1988). Impulsivity and speed-accuracy tradeoffs in information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.274

Dricu, M., & Frühholz, S. (2020). A neurocognitive model of perceptual decision-making on emotional signals. Human Brain Mapping, 41(6), 1532–1556. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24893

Eckstein, M. P., Pham, B. T., & Shimozaki, S. S. (2004). The footprints of visual attention during search with 100% valid and 100% invalid cues. Vision Research, 44(12), 1193–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2003.10.026

Eckstein, M. P., Drescher, B. A., & Shimozaki, S. S. (2009). Statistical decision theory to relate neurons to behavior in the study of covert visual attention. Vision Research, 49(10), 1097–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.12.008

Freitas, A. L., Azizian, A., Travers, S., & Clark, S. E. (2009). When cognitive control is calibrated: Event-related potential correlates of adapting to information-processing conflict despite erroneous response preparation. Psychophysiology, 46(6), 1226–1233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00864.x

Fukuda, K., & Vogel, E. K. (2009). Human variation in overriding attentional capture. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(27), 8726–8733. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2145-09.2009

Fukuda, K., & Vogel, E. K. (2011). Individual differences in recovery time from attentional capture. Psychological Science, 22(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398493

Gonzalez-Rosa, J. J., Inuggi, A., Blasi, V., Cursi, M., Kokinous, R., Comi, G., & Leocani, L. (2013). Response competition and response inhibition during different choice-discrimination tasks: Evidence from ERP measured inside MRI scanner. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.04.021

Huang, L., Dong, S., Hou, Y., Liu, X., & Huang, Y. (2024). Three-stage dynamic brain-cognitive model of understanding action intention displayed by human body movements. Brain Topography, 37(6), 1055–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-024-01061-3

Iigaya, K., & Fusi, S. (2013). Dynamical regimes in neural network models of matching behavior. Neural Computation, 25(12), 3093–3112. https://doi.org/10.1162/NECO_a_00522

Juslin, P. N. (2013). From everyday emotions to aesthetic emotions: Towards a unified theory of musical emotions. Physics of Life Reviews, 10(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.05.008

Katahira, K., Okanoya, K., & Okada, M. (2012). Statistical mechanics of reward-modulated learning in decision-making networks. Neural Computation, 24(5), 1230–1270. https://doi.org/10.1162/NECO_a_00264

Lee Masson, H., Wallraven, C., & Petit, L. (2016). Visual and haptic shape processing in the human brain: Unisensory processing, multisensory convergence, and top-down influences. Cerebral Cortex, 26(8), 3402–3412. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv170

Liang, X., Zou, Q., He, Y., & Yang, Y. (2016). Topologically reorganized connectivity architecture of default-mode, executive-control, and salience networks across working memory task loads. Cerebral Cortex, 26(4), 1501–1511. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu316

Louie, K., & Glimcher, P. W. (2017). Computational principles of value coding in the brain. In J.-C. Dreher & L. Tremblay (Eds.), Decision neuroscience (pp. 121–136). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805308-9.00010-5

Mera, Y., Rodríguez, G., & Marin-Garcia, E. (2022). Unraveling the benefits of experiencing errors during learning: Definition, modulating factors, and explanatory theories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(3), 753–765. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02022-8

Miller, L. N., Rauch, S. A. M., Liberzon, I., & Conybeare, D. (2023). Cumulative trauma load and timing of trauma prior to military deployment differentially influences inhibitory control processing across deployment. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 21414. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48505-7

Patin, A., Scheele, D., & Hurlemann, R. (2018). Oxytocin and interpersonal relationships. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 35, 389–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2017_22

Raftopoulos, A. (2016). Studies on cognitively driven attention suggest that late vision is cognitively penetrated, whereas early vision is not. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, Article e256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002484

Raftopoulos, A. (2017). Pre-cueing, the epistemic role of early vision, and the cognitive impenetrability of early vision. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01156

Ramseyer, F., Ebert, A., Roser, P., Edemann-Callesen, H., Tschacher, W., & Brüne, M. (2020). Exploring nonverbal synchrony in borderline personality disorder: A double-blind placebo-controlled study using oxytocin. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12240

Rouault, M., Lebreton, M., & Pessiglione, M. (2023). A shared brain system forming confidence judgment across cognitive domains. Cerebral Cortex, 33(4), 1426–1439. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac146

Ruiz, S. G., Brazil, I. A., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2023). Distinct neurocognitive fingerprints reflect differential associations with risky and impulsive behavior in a neurotypical sample. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 11782. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38991-0

Scherbaum, S., Fischer, R., Dshemuchadse, M., & Goschke, T. (2011). The dynamics of cognitive control: Evidence for within-trial conflict adaptation from frequency-tagged EEG. Psychophysiology, 48(5), 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01137.x

Scherbaum, S., Dshemuchadse, M., Ruge, H., & Goschke, T. (2012). Dynamic goal states: Adjusting cognitive control without conflict monitoring. NeuroImage, 63(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.021

Tillman, C. M., & Wiens, S. (2011). Behavioral and ERP indices of response conflict in Stroop and flanker tasks. Psychophysiology, 48(10), 1405–1411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01203.x

Toba, M. N., Godefroy, O., Rushmore, R. J., Zavaglia, M., Maatoug, R., Hilgetag, C. C., & Foulon, C. (2024). Same, same but different? A multi-method review of the processes underlying executive control. Neuropsychology Review, 34(2), 418–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09577-4

Vetter, P., & Newen, A. (2014). Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.007

Whitwell, R. L., Grierson, L. E. M., & Goodale, M. A. (2021). The ties that bind: Agnosia, neglect and selective attention to visual scale. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 21(10), Article 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-021-01139-6

Xiao, X., Deng, Y., Wu, H., & Li, X. (2010). Temporal course of cognitive control in a picture-word interference task. Neuroreport, 21(2), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32833499ff

Yantis, S., Meyer, D. E., & Smith, J. E. K. (1991). Analyses of multinomial mixture distributions: New tests for stochastic models of cognition and action. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 350–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.350

Cover Image
Downloads
Publicado
22-04-2026
Edição
v. 1 n. 1 (2026): Publicação em Fluxo Contínuo
Seção
Artigos
Licença

Direitos autorais (c) 2026 CPAH Scientific Journal

Creative Commons License

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Como Citar

Clinical Neuroscience: A 5-Phase Multimodal Model of Perception and Perceptual Errors. (2026). CPAH Scientific Journal, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.66741/ca.2026.001

Artigos mais lidos pelo mesmo(s) autor(es)