Implicit processing during inattentional blindness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nobre, Alexandre de Pontes; Melo, Gabriela Mueller de; Gauer, Gustavo; Wagemans, Johan

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.10.005

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 123 publications

(245 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Load theory faces the challenge of rectifying this pattern of findings and future efforts ought to seek to clarify how attentional settings can afford processing benefits despite load under conditions of IB. For the neuroscientist, these findings may help in better understanding the nature of conscious processing-namely, that inhibition likely contributes to IB (Wood & Simons, 2017b) and that unexpected objects can be preferentially boosted into conscious awareness based purely on their semantic properties , both imply a considerable depth of "unconscious" processing must occur under conditions of IB-a similar conclusion to that reached by both Kreitz et al (2020) and Nobre et al (2020). The next question, then, is where or when within the visual processing cortical hierarchy does this unconscious processing bottleneck cease?…”

Section: Implications Recommendations and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The former pooled data from their lab's prior studies and reported that correct guessing was above chance in observers who were, in their original analysis, considered inattentionally blind or deaf (Kreitz et al, 2020). Nobre et al (2020) reached a similar conclusion in their meta-analysis that focused on implicit processing during IB. Gibbs et al (2016) presented a systematic review of 13 studies examining the related phenomenon change blindness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…In this article, we aim to bring together empirical knowledge of IB through meta-analysis of research that has studied the phenomenon underpinned by these theories. Previous quantitative syntheses relevant to IB includes work by Kreitz et al (2020), a recent meta-analysis by Nobre et al (2020), and earlier meta-analytic work by Gibbs et al (2016). The former pooled data from their lab’s prior studies and reported that correct guessing was above chance in observers who were, in their original analysis, considered inattentionally blind or deaf (Kreitz et al, 2020).…”

Section: Defining Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A tale of two theories: A meta-analysis of the attention set and load theories of inattentional blindness.

Hutchinson¹,

Pammer²,

Bandara³

et al. 2022

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inattentional blindness (IB), the failure to notice something right in front of you, offers cognitive scientists and practitioners alike a unique means of studying the nature of visual perception. The present meta-analysis sought to provide the first synthesis of the two leading theories of IB—attention set and load theory. We aimed to estimate the magnitude of the effect of each, how they interact, and how task parameters moderate the magnitude of IB summary estimates. We further sought to address several theoretical issues that have persisted within this broad literature. A total of 317 effect sizes from 81 studies that had manipulated attention set or load were synthesized in a multilevel meta-analysis. Results indicated no significant difference between the attention set summary estimate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.26, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] [2.33, 4.57]) and the load summary estimate (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [1.10, 2.79]). Theoretical moderators included a difference between feature attention sets (OR = 5.02, 95% CI [2.95, 8.55]), semantic attention sets (OR = 2.64, 95% CI [1.64, 4.25]), and inherent sets (OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.35, 2.68]), while perceptual load (OR = 2.55, 95% CI [1.66, 3.92]) and cognitive load (OR = 1.67, 95% CI [1.14, 2.44]) were more comparable. The primary task was found as a key task parameter that moderated summary estimates. The attention set summary estimate was moderated by the number of targets and distractors, whereas the load summary estimate was moderated by the full attention (FA) trial exclusion criterion. Analyses indicated any potential publication bias were overall not likely to impact our conclusions. We discuss the implications of results for a conceptual understanding of IB and how the phenomenon can be more reliably studied in future.

show abstract

Section: Implications Recommendations and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 72%

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Defining Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A tale of two theories: A meta-analysis of the attention set and load theories of inattentional blindness.

Hutchinson¹,

Pammer²,

Bandara³

et al. 2022

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The list of methods and approaches validating the claim that contents can be processed and represented unconsciously could be extended further. For example, there is also the effect of implicit processing of unexpected stimuli left out of awareness due to “inattentional blindness” (reviewed in Nobre et al. 2020 ).…”

Section: Converging Lines Of Evidence For Unconscious and Preconscious Perceptual Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apical amplification—a cellular mechanism of conscious perception?

Marvan

Polak

Bachmann

et al. 2021

Neuroscience of Consciousness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a theoretical view of the cellular foundations for network-level processes involved in producing our conscious experience. Inputs to apical synapses in layer 1 of a large subset of neocortical cells are summed at an integration zone near the top of their apical trunk. These inputs come from diverse sources and provide a context within which the transmission of information abstracted from sensory input to their basal and perisomatic synapses can be amplified when relevant. We argue that apical amplification enables conscious perceptual experience and makes it more flexible, and thus more adaptive, by being sensitive to context. Apical amplification provides a possible mechanism for recurrent processing theory that avoids strong loops. It makes the broadcasting hypothesized by global neuronal workspace theories feasible while preserving the distinct contributions of the individual cells receiving the broadcast. It also provides mechanisms that contribute to the holistic aspects of integrated information theory. As apical amplification is highly dependent on cholinergic, aminergic, and other neuromodulators, it relates the specific contents of conscious experience to global mental states and to fluctuations in arousal when awake. We conclude that apical dendrites provide a cellular mechanism for the context-sensitive selective amplification that is a cardinal prerequisite of conscious perception.

show abstract

“…For example, studies following Bechara et al's (1997) research on the Iowa Gambling Task found that participants often have appreciably high levels of awareness undetected by the methods employed in the original experiments (Konstantinidis & Shanks, 2014; Maia & McClelland, 2004), while a replication of Dehaene et al's (1998) subliminal semantic priming effects found a similar result (Meyen et al, 2021). In meta-analyses, we have found that awareness is reliably above chance when data are aggregated from contextual cuing (Vadillo, Konstantinidis, & Shanks, 2016) and probability cuing (Vadillo et al, 2020; see also Jiang et al, 2018) experiments almost all of which individually claim the opposite, and Nobre et al (2020) found a similar pattern in studies on implicit effects in inattentional blindness.…”

Section: Bivariate Data: the Basic Problemmentioning

confidence: 72%

The Challenge of Inferring Unconscious Mental Processes

Shanks

Malejka

Vadillo

2021

Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Studies of unconscious mental processes often compare a performance measure (e.g., some assessment of perception or memory) with a measure of awareness (e.g., a verbal report or forced-choice response) of the critical cue or contingency taken either concurrently or separately. The resulting patterns of bivariate data across participants lend themselves to several analytic approaches for inferring the existence of unconscious mental processes, but it is rare for researchers to consider the underlying generative processes that might cause these patterns. We show that bivariate data are generally insufficient to discriminate single-process models, with a unitary latent process determining both performance and awareness, from dual-process models, comprising distinct latent processes for performance and awareness. Future research attempting to isolate and investigate unconscious processes will need to employ richer types of data and analyses.

show abstract

Implicit processing during inattentional blindness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 123 publications

A tale of two theories: A meta-analysis of the attention set and load theories of inattentional blindness.

A tale of two theories: A meta-analysis of the attention set and load theories of inattentional blindness.

Apical amplification—a cellular mechanism of conscious perception?

The Challenge of Inferring Unconscious Mental Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About