Attention ‘capture’ by the flash-lag flash

Chappell, Mark; Hine, Trevor John; Acworth, Charmaine; Hardwick, David

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.017

Cited by 26 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…) between phase and FLD in the θ band (5-10 Hz) in occipital electrodes (with a peak at 7 Hz, 50 ms before the presentation of the flash) and also in the high-α, low-β band (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) in frontocentral electrodes (with a peak at 16 Hz, 60 ms after flash presentation). Because we compared phase-FLD correlations at all time points and frequencies, we corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) (33) procedure, setting the α at a conservative 10 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The flash-lag illusion, where a briefly presented flash in the vicinity of a moving object is misperceived to lag behind the moving object, is a useful tool for studying the dynamics of conscious updating. Here, we show that the trial-by-trial variability in updating, measured by the flash-lag effect (FLE), is highly correlated with the phase of spontaneous EEG oscillations in occipital (5-10 Hz) and frontocentral (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) cortices just around the reference event (flash onset). Further, the periodicity in each region independently influences the updating process, suggesting a two-stage periodic mechanism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The mechanisms underlying the FLE remain unclear, with various processes, such as motion extrapolation (1, 2), postdiction (3, 4), differential neuronal latencies (9-11), empirical experience (12), and attention (13-16) proposed to explain or modulate the misperception. Our study is not intended to address this debate, but we exploit the uncontroversial relation between FLE and conscious updating (3,7,8,(13)(14)(15)(16) to determine whether the updating process is continuous or periodic.Our perceptual experience of continuous external changes in the world appears seamless. Hence, it is intuitive to assume that object representations in awareness are updated continuously.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This spatiotemporal illusion is classically taken to reflect the efficiency of updating and has been used to study the dynamics of conscious updating (3,7,8). The mechanisms underlying the FLE remain unclear, with various processes, such as motion extrapolation (1,2), postdiction (3,4), differential neuronal latencies (9)(10)(11), empirical experience (12), and attention (13)(14)(15)(16) proposed to explain or modulate the misperception. Our study is not intended to address this debate, but we exploit the uncontroversial relation between FLE and conscious updating (3,7,8,(13)(14)(15)(16) to determine whether the updating process is continuous or periodic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conscious updating is a rhythmic process

Chakravarthi

VanRullen

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the visual world changes, its representation in our consciousness must be constantly updated. Given that the external changes are continuous, it appears plausible that conscious updating is continuous as well. Alternatively, this updating could be periodic, if, for example, its implementation at the neural level relies on oscillatory activity. The flash-lag illusion, where a briefly presented flash in the vicinity of a moving object is misperceived to lag behind the moving object, is a useful tool for studying the dynamics of conscious updating. Here, we show that the trial-by-trial variability in updating, measured by the flash-lag effect (FLE), is highly correlated with the phase of spontaneous EEG oscillations in occipital (5-10 Hz) and frontocentral (12-20 Hz) cortices just around the reference event (flash onset). Further, the periodicity in each region independently influences the updating process, suggesting a two-stage periodic mechanism. We conclude that conscious updating is not continuous; rather, it follows a rhythmic pattern.T he external world is in a state of continuous flux. The brain needs to track these changes and update its conscious representations to keep up with reality. This updating takes time and can be prone to systematic errors, as demonstrated, for example, by the flash-lag effect (1-4) (FLE). In FLE, a briefly presented stationary object (flash) near a moving object is misperceived to lag behind (1-4) or the moving stimulus is misperceived to be ahead (5, 6). This spatiotemporal illusion is classically taken to reflect the efficiency of updating and has been used to study the dynamics of conscious updating (3,7,8). The mechanisms underlying the FLE remain unclear, with various processes, such as motion extrapolation (1, 2), postdiction (3, 4), differential neuronal latencies (9-11), empirical experience (12), and attention (13-16) proposed to explain or modulate the misperception. Our study is not intended to address this debate, but we exploit the uncontroversial relation between FLE and conscious updating (3,7,8,(13)(14)(15)(16) to determine whether the updating process is continuous or periodic.Our perceptual experience of continuous external changes in the world appears seamless. Hence, it is intuitive to assume that object representations in awareness are updated continuously. However, a seamless appearance is not a guarantor of a continuous process: for example, a movie appears continuous even though it is based on discrete images displayed periodically. Discrete processing in perception is an idea that has been espoused and discarded several times (17-25). However, recent studies indicate that at least some aspects of perception, such as the detection of a perithreshold stimulus, rely on discrete or periodic sampling (26-28). Here, we ask whether one of the highest levels of perception, namely conscious updating, is periodic as well. ResultsTo test our hypothesis, we measured the flash-lag effect as an index of the efficiency of conscious updating on each trial: we asked o...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conscious updating is a rhythmic process

Chakravarthi

VanRullen

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of the present study clearly demonstrate that spatial misperceptions can arise from differences in allocating attention alone, and thus confirm earlier attentional explanations of diverse visual illusions (cf. Baldo et al, 2002;Baldo & Klein, 1995;Chappell, Hine, Acworth, & Hardwick, 2006;Müsseler & Aschersleben, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial mislocalization as a consequence of sequential coding of stimuli

Priess

Scharlau

Becker

et al. 2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, we tested whether sequentially coding two visual stimuli can create a spatial misperception of a visual moving stimulus. In Experiment 1, we showed that a spatial misperception, the flash-lag effect, is accompanied by a similar temporal misperception of first perceiving the flash and only then a change of the moving stimulus, when in fact the two events were exactly simultaneous. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that when the spatial misperception of a flash-lag effect is absent, the temporal misperception is also absent. In Experiment 3, we extended these findings and showed that if the stimulus conditions require coding first a flash and subsequently a nearby moving stimulus, a spatial flash-lag effect is found, with the position of the moving stimulus being misperceived as shifted in the direction of its motion, whereas this spatial misperception is reversed so that the moving stimulus is misperceived as shifted in a direction opposite to its motion when the conditions require coding first the moving stimulus and then the flash. Together, the results demonstrate that sequential coding of two stimuli can lead to a spatial misperception whose direction can be predicted from the order of coding the moving object versus the flash. We propose an attentional sequential-coding explanation for the flash-lag effect and discuss its explanatory power with respect to related illusions (e.g., the Fröhlich effect) and other explanations.

show abstract