How do we experience the visual world around us? The traditional view holds that the retinal input is analyzed to reconstruct an internal image that generates our perceptual experience. However, a general theory of how visual features are experienced in space and time is lacking. The fundamental claim of this grant proposal is that only motor knowledge - i.e. the way we interact with the world - establishes the underlying metric of space and time perception. In this model view, the spatial and temporal structure of perception is embedded in the processing of neural motor maps. The project moreSense has four major objectives: First, it will unravel how neural motor maps provide the metric for the experience of visual space. It will be hypothesised that there is no central neural map of space or time but a weighted contribution of all maps. Novel experimental techniques are required to uncover the motor basis of perception, which are available by recent developments in head-mounted displays and online motion tracking. Second, it will provide a general understanding of time perception being implicitly coded in movement plans to objects in space. Third, results from the first two objectives will be applied to the long-standing mystery of visual stability and continuity across movements. A bayesian model, supported by quantitative measurements, will demonstrate how information combination from the various motor maps leads naturally to stable and continuous perception. Fourth, this new theory of space and time perception will be investigated in patients suffering from a breakdown of space perception. The results will establish causal evidence that space and time perception are generated by processing in motor maps. New rehabilitation procedures will be developed to re-establish spatial perception in these patients. The experiments in this grant proposal will unravel the fundamental spatiotemporal structure of perception which organizes our sensory experience.

Molecules have an enormous potential in the field of frequency metrology-based fundamental physics, yet have so far not played an important role, due to difficult experimental challenges. The goal of this project is to overcome these difficulties by developing new techniques, thus opening a new chapter in precision molecular spectroscopy. Furthermore, it will have far-reaching impact in fundamental physics: (1) A 500-fold improved limit to the existence of a “fifth force” with range on the 0.1 nm scale. (2) An independently determined set of the fundamental constants me/mp, me/md, and the Rydberg constant R∞. Their uncertainties will be reduced compared to CODATA2014 by up to a factor of 23 for me/mp, 4 for me/md, and 2 for R∞; (3) A test of the current muonic atom discrepancies of proton and deuteron charge radii rp and rd at the 30% and 50% level, respectively; (4) Achieve a precision 1×10-16 in molecular ion spectroscopy, thus exploring the feasibility of using, in the future, molecular ions for testing the time-dependence of me/mp and mp/md. Molecular hydrogen ions (MHIs) are the systems in principle suitable for providing these results: indeed, the required ab initio theory has made outstanding advances, reaching the 8×10-12 inaccuracy level. To date, experimental results are orders of magnitude less precise. In order to achieve an accuracy surpassing the theoretical one, this project shall develop new quantum optical techniques, including: - Doppler-free spectroscopy, rotational and ro-vibrational; - preparation of a single molecular ion in a single internal quantum state; - resolution and control of systematic shifts at levels from 1×10-12 to 1×10-16; - novel spectroscopy laser systems. These techniques will be of general applicability in the field of molecular ion spectroscopy. The proposed work is based on the wide experience of the PI in precision measurements and will make a strong and overdue contribution to spectroscopy and fundamental physics.

This project uses integrated history and philosophy for medicine to inform medical practice today. The evaluation of medical tests is today in a state of confusion. Traditionally, the main index used to evaluate diagnostic tests is diagnostic accuracy. Typically, this is done by evaluating the sensitivity (the proportion of patients with a disease that test positive) and the specificity (the proportion of patients without a disease who test negative) of a test. Sensitivity and specificity are commonly assumed to be constants, or to vary only in a limited rage of circumstances. In contrast to this, others claim that sensitivity and specificity are highly variable, so much so that the ‘diagnostic accuracy paradigm’ should be abandoned. Instead of focusing on diagnostic accuracy, some recommend that test evaluation should focus on patient outcomes, whilst others strongly disagree. This confusion is detrimental to medical practice, as it leaves medicine in a state of not knowing how to tell if a medical test is a good one. This project seeks to understand and address this confusion using historical and philosophical tools. Philosophical analysis reveals that the differing attitudes to test evaluation have at their root differing philosophical assumptions about how homogeneous or heterogeneous patients with the same disease are. The project provides and intellectual and social history that traces the development of test evaluation over the twentieth century. It follows how successive generations of researchers have balanced assumptions of homogeneity and heterogeneity and modified them for use in their particular setting. The central claim of this project is that understanding medical history is key to balancing assumptions of homogeneity and heterogeneity skillfully.

This project investigates the source of metaphysical modality, that is to say, it is concerned with the question: “In virtue of what are some facts necessary and others possible, contingent, or impossible?”. In particular, it will focus on the systematic investigation of the relations between the two main “new actualist” theories of modality, which share the idea that modal facts can be explained by, or grounded by, more fundamental, wholly actual phenomena. The former aims to ground modal facts in the irreducibly dispositional properties possessed by actual objects—powers, capacities, potentialities, and so on. In its simplest terms, it states that something is possible if and only if there is a (chain of) actual power(s) directed at it, and necessary if and only if there is no power to bring about the truthmaker of its negation. The latter aims to ground modal facts upon the essences of actual objects: what must be the case follows from the nature or identity of the existing entities, and what can be the case is whatever does not clash with said natures. In its simplest terms, it states that something is necessary if it is part of the essence of everything, and possible if its negation is not contained in the essence of everything. In recent years, each of these two theories has generated a rich and influential literature and have proved to be among the most serious candidates as sources of modality. However, their weaknesses have also started to become clear: Dispositionalism seems to have a hard time accounting for logical and mathematical necessities, while essentialism seems to struggle more in accounting for the kind of modal truths involved in the causal, dynamic, diachronic evolution of a system. The aim of the current project is to develop an integrated theory, which incorporates elements of both theories and avoids their weaknesses

How we decide between different alternatives is a central question to cognitive neuroscience. Decisions may appear trivial (selecting between two meals), or sophisticated and long reaching (deciding whom to marry). Decisions constitute a highly dynamical process of evidence accumulation. These dynamics can be represented in cortical oscillations, which have attracted great interest as a key mechanism that coordinates fast computations. While a few studies have investigated the role of cortical oscillations in decision making, the underlying mechanisms translating neurochemical activity into network dynamics and ultimately into choice remain unknown. Although neuromodulator effects are well described at the cellular level, their network effects during high-level behaviours are not well understood. There is however evidence that neuromodulators also control cortical oscillations and that this may have behavioural relevance. For a mechanistic understanding of human decision making, it is essential to (1) study its fast temporal cortical dynamics and (2) understand how neurochemical signalling gives rise to network dynamics and ultimately to cognition. Biophysical network models are excellent tools for linking these different levels of investigation. Such an understanding is critically important not only from a basic science perspective, it will also further our understanding of psychiatric diseases, which are often characterized by anomalies in neurochemical systems, neural oscillations and decision making. The novel approach that is core to this proposal is to investigate whether and how neurochemical systems guide decision behaviour by modulating cortical dynamics. To achieve this ambitious goal, I will use a combination of imaging methods with computational modelling, pharmacological challenges and electrical brain stimulation. This new approach will allow me to move towards a mechanistic understanding of the systems-level dynamics underlying decision making.