Attention-based perceptual learning does not affect access to awareness

Paffen, Chris; Gayet, Surya; Heilbron, Micha; Stigchel, Stefan Van der

doi:10.1167/18.3.7

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to this view, re-entrant processing is characterized within the narrow definition of goal-driven attention. On the other hand, in the perceptual learning literature, re-entrant processing is defined in terms of the task relevance of the trained stimulus (Ahissar & Hochstein, 1993; for an opposing view, see Seitz & Watanabe, 2009), which is mechanistically different from goal-driven attention (Paffen, Gayet, Heilbron, & Van der Stigchel, 2018). Our finding that task relevance is necessary for binding-learning in very brief search displays suggests that attention-dependence cannot be inferred based on differences in the time-course of stimulus presentation.…”

Section: Goal-driven Versus Habitual Attentionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Stimulus variability and task relevance modulate binding-learning

George

Egner

2021

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classical theories of attention posit that integration of features into object representation (or feature binding) requires engagement of focused attention. Studies challenging this idea have demonstrated that feature binding can happen outside of the focus of attention for familiar objects, as well as for arbitrary color-orientation conjunctions. Detection performance for arbitrary feature conjunction improves with training, suggesting a potential role of perceptual learning mechanisms in the integration of features, a process called "binding-learning". In the present study, we investigate whether stimulus variability and task relevance, two critical determinants of visual perceptual learning, also modulate binding-learning. Transfer of learning in a visual search task to a pre-exposed color-orientation conjunction was assessed under conditions of varying stimulus variability and task relevance. We found transfer of learning for the pre-exposed feature conjunctions that were trained with high variability (Experiment 1). Transfer of learning was not observed when the conjunction was rendered taskirrelevant during training due to pop-out targets (Experiment 2). Our findings show that feature binding is determined by principles of perceptual learning, and they support the idea that functions traditionally attributed to goal-driven attention can be grounded in the learning of the statistical structure of the environment.

show abstract

Section: Goal-driven Versus Habitual Attentionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Stimulus variability and task relevance modulate binding-learning

George

Egner

2021

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past studies have tried to control for criterion effects. In one approach, researchers have included a non-rivalrous control condition where the target stimuli are shown on top of the flashing CFS masks (Akechi et al, 2014; Costello et al, 2009; Jiang et al, 2007; Li & Li, 2015; Madipakkam et al, 2015; Mudrik et al, 2011; Paffen et al, 2018; Stein & Sterzer, 2012; Zhou et al, 2010), with the assumption that if non-rivalrous conditions emulate all processes that are not CFS-specific but that contribute to RTs, any differences found in the rivalrous condition (compared to the non-rivalrous condition) should index the process that leads to breakthrough. However, because target stimuli in non-rivalrous control conditions are more easily discernible from the mask (Stein, Hebart, & Sterzer, 2011), non-rivalrous conditions may not reproduce criterion effects present in CFS conditions.…”

Section: The Breaking Continuous Flash Suppression Paradigm: Inconsis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the influence of emotional expressions on perceptual sensitivity to faces overcoming interocular suppression.

Lanfranco¹,

Rabagliati²,

Carmel³

2023

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detecting faces and identifying their emotional expressions are essential for social interaction. The importance of expressions has prompted suggestions that some emotionally relevant facial features may be processed unconsciously, and it has been further suggested that this unconscious processing yields preferential access to awareness. Evidence for such preferential access has predominantly come from reaction times in the breaking continuous flash suppression (bCFS) paradigm, which measures how long it takes different stimuli to overcome interocular suppression. For instance, it has been claimed that fearful expressions break through suppression faster than neutral expressions. However, in the bCFS procedure, observers can decide how much information they receive before committing to a report, so although their responses may reflect differential detection sensitivity, they may also be influenced by differences in decision criteria, stimulus identification, and response production processes. Here, we employ a procedure that directly measures sensitivity for both face detection and identification of facial expressions, using predefined exposure durations. We apply diverse psychophysical approaches-forced-choice localization, presence/absence detection, and staircase-based threshold measurement; across six experiments, we find that emotional expressions do not alter detection sensitivity to faces as they break through CFS. Our findings constrain the possible mechanisms underlying previous findings: faster reporting of emotional expressions' breakthrough into awareness is unlikely to be due to the presence of emotion affecting perceptual sensitivity; the source of such effects is likely to reside in one of the many other processes that influence response times.

show abstract

“…CFS or backward masking), it requires carefully calibrated presentation parameters that yield chance performance in the discrimination task (to establish absence of awareness) but above-chance performance in the detection task (a prerequisite for measuring differences between conditions). As the strength of CFS varies strongly between and within participants [70][71][72][73] , in practice methods other than CFS may be preferable for finding appropriate stimulation parameters. Here, we used (standard) backward masking, where stimulation parameters can be more easily calibrated to present stimuli with maximum bottom-up stimulus strength just below the discrimination threshold.…”

Section: The Detection-discrimination Dissociation Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociating conscious and unconscious influences on visual detection effects

Stein

Peelen

2021

Nat Hum Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scope of unconscious processing is highly debated, with recent studies showing that even highlevel functions such as perceptual integration and category-based attention occur unconsciously.For example, upright faces that are suppressed from awareness through interocular suppression break into awareness more quickly than inverted faces. Similarly, verbal object cues boost otherwise invisible objects into awareness. Here, we replicate these findings, but find that they reflect a general difference in detectability not specific to interocular suppression. To dissociate conscious and unconscious influences on visual detection effects, we use an additional discrimination task to rule out conscious processes as a cause for these differences. Results from this detection-discrimination dissociation paradigm reveal that while face orientation is processed unconsciously, category-based attention requires awareness. These findings provide insights into the function of conscious perception and offer an experimental approach for mapping out the scope and limits of unconscious processing. MainA thriving field of research in psychology and neuroscience has made progress in revealing the putative functions of consciousness [1][2][3][4] . Influential theories of consciousness converge on the notion that while much mental activity is unconscious, consciousness is required for more complex and flexible operations, such as integration over space and time, object recognition, control of voluntary attention, and intentional action 3,5,6 . Recently, this view has been challenged by studies showing that many highlevel operations 7 , including perceptual integration 8 , attention 9 , working memory 10 , and executive control 11 , can happen unconsciously. Such findings beg the question why consciousness emerged at all in the course of evolution. However, such conclusions may be premature, as much of the evidence for high-level unconscious processing is highly debated, with controversies revolving around how to manipulate and measure unconscious processing [12][13][14][15] . Here, we first show that one of the most widely adopted behavioural approaches, the "breaking continuous flash suppression" (b-CFS) paradigm, cannot provide evidence for unconscious processing. We then present an alternative approach and demonstrate how it can distinguish between functions that do and do not require consciousness.Many studies claiming high-level unconscious processing have investigated differences in the speed of stimulus detection, with the assumption that differences in detection speed reflect differential unconscious processing preceding detection [16][17][18] . It is widely recognized, however, that a detection difference can arise at any stage between stimulus (retina) and response: Detection responses could be influenced by later conscious processes (e.g. related to stimulus recognition and identification) or by

show abstract

Attention-based perceptual learning does not affect access to awareness

Cited by 7 publications

References 81 publications

Stimulus variability and task relevance modulate binding-learning

Stimulus variability and task relevance modulate binding-learning

Assessing the influence of emotional expressions on perceptual sensitivity to faces overcoming interocular suppression.

Dissociating conscious and unconscious influences on visual detection effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About