Implicit processing during change blindness revealed with mouse-contingent and gaze-contingent displays

Chetverikov, Andrey; Kuvaldina, Maria; MacInnes, W. Joseph; Jóhannesson, Ómar I.; Kristjánsson, Árni

doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1468-5

Cited by 11 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(90 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although we found no evidence that untethered covert attention led to a visual search benefit this presents a puzzle in light of our previous finding on performance on a change detection task where untethered attention led to improved performance (Chetverikov, 2018). We can speculate that it is detrimental to split attention between two loci in this visual search task and that the attentional demands of the change blindness and visual search tasks differ.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

“…If the two networks can operate independently, then there is potentially a benefit to be gained if the locus of covert attention can be separated from the locus of gaze. In fact, in a previous study with the change blindness paradigm we found such improved performance when participants were able to control a visible aperture separately from the centre of gaze (Chetverikov et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…In previous work, we introduced a paradigm that allows a dissociation between covert and overt attention. We compared covert and overt contributions to a change blindness task using mouse-contingent and gaze-contingent displays (Chetverikov et al, 2018). Observers had to judge whether a change occurred somewhere in an array of objects between two alternating presentations of the array.…”

Section: Untethering Overt and Covert Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our gaze contingent paradigm, moving gaze around moved the mask. We compared such a paradigm with our newly designed mouse-contingent paradigm (Chetverikov et al, 2018) where the visual display changes according to the real-time location of a user-controlled mouse cursor, allowing comparison of visual search performance with mainly overt attention (gaze-contingent display) and untethered overt and covert attention (mouse-contingent display).…”

Section: Current Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

No advantage for separating overt and covert attention in visual search

MacInnes¹,

Jóhannesson²,

Chetverikov³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We move our eyes roughly three times every second while searching complex scenes, but covert attention helps to guide where we allocate those overt fixations. Covert attention may be allocated reflexively or voluntarily, and speeds the rate of information processing at the attended location. Reducing access to covert attention hinders performance, but it is not known to what degree the locus of covert attention is tied to the current gaze position. We compared visual search performance in a traditional gaze contingent display with a second task where a similarly sized contingent window is controlled with a mouse allowing a covert aperture to be controlled independently from overt gaze. Larger apertures improved performance for both mouse and gaze contingent trials suggesting that covert attention was beneficial regardless of control type. We also found evidence that participants used the mouse controlled aperture independently of gaze position, suggesting that participants attempted to untether their covert and overt attention when possible. This untethering manipulation, however, resulted in an overall cost to search performance, a result at odds with previous results in a change blindness paradigm. Untethering covert and overt attention may therefore have costs or benefits depending on the task demands in each case.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Untethering Overt and Covert Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

No advantage for separating overt and covert attention in visual search

MacInnes¹,

Jóhannesson²,

Chetverikov³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This definition has been extended and explored using electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye-tracking, with a range of results suggesting a richer visual experience than either "yes I saw a change" or "no I didn't see anything" (Busch et al, 2009;Kimura et al, 2008;Lyyra et al, 2012;Thornton & Fernandez-Duque, 2001; Howe & Webb, 2014;Chetverikov et al, 2018;Reynolds & Withers, 2015;Lyyra et al, 2012;Galpin et al, 2008). The distinction could be described by the 'partial awareness hypothesis' (Kouider et al, 2010;Kouider & Dehaene, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensing and seeing associated with overlapping occipitoparietal activation in simultaneous EEG-fMRI

Scrivener

Malik

Lindner

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractThe presence of a change in a visual scene can influence brain activity and behaviour, even in the absence of full conscious report. It may be possible for us to sense that such a change has occurred, even if we cannot specify exactly where or what it was. Despite existing evidence from electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye-tracking data, it is still unclear how this partial level of awareness relates to fMRI BOLD activation. Using EEG, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and a change blindness paradigm, we found multi-modal evidence to suggest that sensing a change is distinguishable from being blind to it. Specifically, trials during which participants could detect the presence of a colour change but not identify the location of the change (sense trials), were compared to those where participants could both detect and localise the change (localise or see trials), as well as change blind trials. In EEG, late parietal positivity and N2 amplitudes were larger for localised changes only, when compared to change blindness. However, ERP-informed fMRI analysis found no voxels with activation that significantly co-varied with fluctuations in single-trial late positivity amplitudes. In fMRI, a range of visual (BA17,18), parietal (BA7,40), and midbrain (anterior cingulate, BA24) areas showed increased fMRI BOLD activation when a change was sensed, compared to change blindness. These visual and parietal areas are commonly implicated as the storage sites of visual working memory, and we therefore argue that sensing may not be explained by a lack of stored representation of the visual display. Both seeing and sensing a change were associated with an overlapping occipitoparietal network of activation when compared to blind trials, suggesting that the quality of the visual representation, rather than the lack of one, may result in partial awareness during the change blindness paradigm.

show abstract

An EEG study of detection without localisation in change blindness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies of change blindness have suggested a distinction between detection and localisation of changes in a visual scene. Using a simple paradigm with an array of coloured squares, the present study aimed to further investigate differences in event-related potentials (ERPs) between trials in which participants could detect the presence of a colour change but not identify the location of the change (sense trials), versus those where participants could both detect and localise the change (localise trials). Individual differences in performance were controlled for by adjusting the difficulty of the task in real time. Behaviourally, reaction times for sense, blind, and false alarm trials were distinguishable when comparing across levels of participant certainty. In the EEG data, we found no significant differences in the visual awareness negativity ERP, contrary to previous findings. In the N2pc range, both awareness conditions (localise and sense) were significantly different to trials with no change detection (blind trials), suggesting that this ERP is not dependent on explicit awareness. Within the late positivity range, all conditions were significantly different. These results suggest that changes can be ‘sensed’ without knowledge of the location of the changing object, and that participant certainty scores can provide valuable information about the perception of changes in change blindness.

show abstract

Implicit processing during change blindness revealed with mouse-contingent and gaze-contingent displays

Cited by 11 publications

References 77 publications

No advantage for separating overt and covert attention in visual search

No advantage for separating overt and covert attention in visual search

Sensing and seeing associated with overlapping occipitoparietal activation in simultaneous EEG-fMRI

An EEG study of detection without localisation in change blindness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About