Does Perceptual Learning Require Consciousness or Attention?

Abstract

It has been proposed that visual attention and consciousness are separate [Koch, C., & Tsuchiya, N. Attention and consciousness: Two distinct brain processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 16-22, 2007] and possibly even orthogonal processes [Lamme, V. A. F. Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 12-18, 2003]. Attention and consciousness converge when conscious visual percepts are attended and hence become available for conscious report. In such a view, a lack of reportability can have two causes: the absence of attention or the absence of a conscious percept. This raises an important question in the field of perceptual learning. It is known that learning can occur in the absence of reportability [Gutnisky, D. A., Hansen, B. J., Iliescu, B. F., & Dragoi, V. Attention alters visual plasticity during exposure-based learning. Current Biology, 19, 555-560, 2009; Seitz, A. R., Kim, D., & Watanabe, T. Rewards evoke learning of unconsciously processed visual stimuli in adult humans. Neuron, 61, 700-707, 2009; Seitz, A. R., & Watanabe, T. Is subliminal learning really passive? Nature, 422, 36, 2003; Watanabe, T., Náñez, J. E., & Sasaki, Y. Perceptual learning without perception. Nature, 413, 844-848, 2001], but it is unclear which of the two ingredients-consciousness or attention-is not necessary for learning. We presented textured figure-ground stimuli and manipulated reportability either by masking (which only interferes with consciousness) or with an inattention paradigm (which only interferes with attention). During the second session (24 hr later), learning was assessed neurally and behaviorally, via differences in figure-ground ERPs and via a detection task. Behavioral and neural learning effects were found for stimuli presented in the inattention paradigm and not for masked stimuli. Interestingly, the behavioral learning effect only became apparent when performance feedback was given on the task to measure learning, suggesting that the memory trace that is formed during inattention is latent until accessed. The results suggest that learning requires consciousness, and not attention, and further strengthen the idea that consciousness is separate from attention.

On the evolution of conscious attention

“…Of course the problem is that reporting mental content requires consciousness and the experiments typically implemented require reportability, either through verbal language or through gestures. Additionally, even when implicit perceptual learning is found under conditions where attention is supposedly not engaged (e.g., the inattentional condition in Meuwese, et al, 2013), whether or not all forms of attention are truly absent in these cases remains debatable, since we would argue that higher-level focused attention may be absent under inattentional conditions, but low-level visual processing, such has feature-based attention, must still be operating. Furthermore, there certainly must be unconscious forms of learning, like procedural or associative learning in humans and animals (Griffin & Speck, 2004).…”

“…The functional-computational approach that is assumed in evolutionary theory and cognitive psychology has been criticized as useless to account for consciousness by many theorists (e.g., Block, 1995;Chalmers, 1996). Even if one defines consciousness functionally-as in global workspace accounts (Baars, 1988(Baars, , 1998Dehaene & Naccache, 2001), or an integrative account (Tononi, 2008(Tononi, , 2012, or even in an account that emphasizes learning (Meuwese, Post, Scholte, & Lamme, 2013)-one can still argue that attention is an early adaptation and that the alleged functions of consciousness must be a much later addition to the repertoire of cognitive capacities, thus demonstrating their dissociation based on this early versus late adaptation argument. Furthermore, there seems to be consensus concerning the claim that consciousness appeared recently in the evolution of cognitive capacities.…”

“…Some researchers argue that the case of learning presents a dissociation between consciousness and attention. In particular, some claim that conscious awareness-and not attention-is necessary for learning (e.g., see Lovibond, Liu, Weidemann, & Mitchell, 2011;Meuwese, et al, 2013). Of course the problem is that reporting mental content requires consciousness and the experiments typically implemented require reportability, either through verbal language or through gestures.…”

Latent Memory of Unattended Stimuli Reactivated by Practice: An fMRI Study on the Role of Consciousness and Attention in Learning

“…Experimental setup was largely similar to Meuwese et al [36], except for a few adjustments to make the experiment fMRI-compatible (instead of EEG) and additional neural measurements (second (‘post-feedback’) neural measurement on day 2 to examine the neural effect of behavioral feedback, plus a retinotopic mapping session one week later).…”

“…Previously, we have tried to answer this question by independently manipulating consciousness and attention, measuring neural activity with electroencephalography (EEG) [36]. We exposed subjects to stimuli that were either masked yet attended, or unmasked yet not attended, which yields stimuli unreportable for orthogonal reasons.…”