Neurophysiological studies in humans employing magneto- and electro- encephalography increasingly suggest that oscillatory rhythmic activity of the brain may be a core mechanism for binding sensory information across space, time, and object features to generate a unified perceptual representation. To distinguish whether oscillatory activity is causally related to binding processes or whether, on the contrary, it is a mere epiphenomenon, one possibility is to employ neuromodulatory techniques such as transcranial alternating current stimulation. tACS has seen a rising interest due to (...) its ability to modulate brain oscillations in a frequency-dependent manner. In the present review, we critically summarize current tACS evidence for a causal role of oscillatory activity in spatial, temporal, and feature binding in the context of visual perception. For temporal binding, the emerging picture supports a causal link with the power and the frequency of occipital alpha rhythms ; however, there is no consistent evidence on the causal role of the phase of occipital tACS. For feature binding, the only study available showed a modulation by occipital alpha tACS. The majority of studies that successfully modulated oscillatory activity and behavioral performance in spatial binding targeted parietal areas, with the main rhythms causally linked being the theta and beta frequency bands. On the other hand, spatio-temporal binding has been directly modulated by parieto-occipital gamma and alpha tACS, suggesting a potential role of cross-frequency coupling when binding across space and time. Nonetheless, negative or partial results have also been observed, suggesting methodological limitations that should be addressed in future research. Overall, the emerging picture seems to support a causal role of brain oscillations in binding processes and, consequently, a certain degree of plasticity for shaping binding mechanisms in visual perception, which, if proved to have long lasting effects, can find applications in different clinical populations. (shrink)

Van Orden and Paap argue that subtractive functional neuroimaging is fundamentally flawed, unfalsifiable, and cannot bear upon the nature of mind. In this they are mistaken, although their criticisms interestingly illuminate the scientific problems we confront in investigating the material basis of mind. Here, I consider the criticisms of Van Orden and Paap and discuss where they are mistaken and where justified. I then consider the picture of imaging science that Van Orden and Paap seem to espouse and sketch an (...) alternative picture that is more realistic, more interesting, and consistent with the deliverances and the weaknesses of neuroimaging techniques. Finally, I identify three assumptions that I do think neuroimaging is wedded to and briefly discuss their implications. (shrink)