Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness

Abstract

Linguistic labels (e.g., "chair") seem to activate visual properties of the objects to which they refer. Here we investigated whether language-based activation of visual representations can affect the ability to simply detect the presence of an object. We used continuous flash suppression to suppress visual awareness of familiar objects while they were continuously presented to one eye. Participants made simple detection decisions, indicating whether they saw any image. Hearing a verbal label before the simple detection task changed performance relative to an uninformative cue baseline. Valid labels improved performance relative to no-label baseline trials. Invalid labels decreased performance. Labels affected both sensitivity (d′) and response times. In addition, we found that the effectiveness of labels varied predictably as a function of the match between the shape of the stimulus and the shape denoted by the label. Together, the findings suggest that facilitated detection of invisible objects due to language occurs at a perceptual rather than semantic locus. We hypothesize that when information associated with verbal labels matches stimulus-driven activity, language can provide a boost to perception, propelling an otherwise invisible image into awareness.vision | top-down effects | CFS | penetrability of perception

A social Bayesian brain: How social knowledge can shape visual perception

“…In this paradigm, one eye views constantly changing Mondrian-style images (which initially dominate conscious perception), while the other eye views an image of an object. Pinto and colleagues (2015) found that expected objects broke through the continuous flash suppression faster than unexpected, or neutral objects (see also Chang, Kanai, & Seth, 2015;Lupyan & Ward, 2013). Together, findings from these studies suggest that participants were not just biased towards reporting the preferred stimuli, but actually were more likely to perceive the stimuli that they wanted or expected to see.…”

From words-as-mappings to words-as-cues: the role of language in semantic knowledge

“…16 The uncertainty inherent in language promotes the formation-in both developmental time and in the moment-of representations that represent category diagnostic information and abstract over idiosyncratic information. The consequences of these more categorical representations are substantial, spanning basic perceptual tasks (Lupyan, 2008;Lupyan & Spivey, 2010a, 2010bLupyan & Ward, 2013;Lupyan & Spivey, 2008) and higher level reasoning (Lupyan, 2015).…”

What have labels ever done for us? The linguistic shortcut in conceptual processing

“…We mentally represent things that are present in the environment during online processing of real-world perception and action, and can represent them again in their absence during offline remembering, planning, and daydreaming (Wilson, 2002). As such, it seems reasonable that attaching a linguistic label to a particular aspect of experience could make it easier to perform some conceptual tasks, such as acquiring concepts like object kinds (Xu, 2002) and numbers (Carey, 2004), shaping the boundaries between colour categories (Winawer et al, 2007), or influencing how easily a visual feature or object is detected (Lupyan & Ward, 2013). Attaching a label to a bundle of experience may allow us to attend to it more easily in online processing, re-activate it more easily in offline processing, and hence help it cohere into a concept by assisting with abstraction (i.e., moving from a specific instance of sensorimotor experience to a generalised, aggregate form).…”