Predictive processing frameworks for perception can explain recent drone sightings in the United States

[Gary C]

Members have touched on a number of the points covered in this article but the authors here pull the important ones together under a psychological framework that provides a more generalized explanation for people who shout, "Drone!" before verifying their observations.

"Here, we make a unique contribution to the discussion by drawing on the predictive processing theory of perception (Box 1) to explain why healthy, intelligent, honest, and psychologically normal people might easily misperceive lights in the sky as threatening or extraordinary objects, especially in the context of WEIRD (western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic) societies. We argue that the uniquely sparse properties of skyborne and celestial stimuli make it difficult for an observer to update prior beliefs, which can be easily fit to observed lights. We briefly discuss the possible role of generalized distrust in scientific institutions [8] and ultimately argue for the importance of astronomy education for producing a society with prior beliefs that support veridical perception."

downloadable pdf - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.03013

 

[Ann K]

The lead author of the paper is from a very "iffy" organization, the "Institute for Advanced Consciousness Studies, Santa Monica", and the information that I found about them that does not come directly from the institute is, alas, from AI:

The Institute for Advanced Consciousness Studies (IACS) is a non-profit research organization focused on understanding consciousness. Founded in 2019 and located in Santa Monica, California, IACS employs various scientific methods, including neuroimaging and neuromodulation, to explore consciousness through immersive technologies and altered states of awareness. The institute aims to bridge ancient wisdom with modern science, particularly through practices like meditation and dark retreats, to investigate their effects on consciousness and well-being

In simpler language, they're into woo, so the paper should be read with that in mind. That doesn't invalidate the paper's conclusions, of course, but since it is free of either evidence or statistics, it is better characterized as an opinion piece.

 

[Gary C]

They do characterize the article as editorial in nature so they appear to be aware. I decided to share it in that vein.
I have not gotten through all the references yet to see what harder evidence might be behind their position.