2009
DOI: 10.3758/app.71.7.1507
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of spatial attention on invisible stimuli

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
47
3
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
7
47
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There is only limited evidence, however, for specific facial features being processed unconsciously (Adams et al, 2010; Xu et al, 2011). Most studies indicate that the representation of facial shape, gender, identity, expression, and eye gaze requires awareness (Moradi et al, 2005; Shin et al, 2009; Yang et al, 2010; Amihai et al, 2011; Stein and Sterzer, 2011; Stein et al, 2012a). Amihai et al (2011) found that faces rendered invisible through CFS failed to induce race adaptation aftereffects, indicating that there is no unconscious processing of facial properties that discriminate faces from different races.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is only limited evidence, however, for specific facial features being processed unconsciously (Adams et al, 2010; Xu et al, 2011). Most studies indicate that the representation of facial shape, gender, identity, expression, and eye gaze requires awareness (Moradi et al, 2005; Shin et al, 2009; Yang et al, 2010; Amihai et al, 2011; Stein and Sterzer, 2011; Stein et al, 2012a). Amihai et al (2011) found that faces rendered invisible through CFS failed to induce race adaptation aftereffects, indicating that there is no unconscious processing of facial properties that discriminate faces from different races.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under interocular suppression, by contrast, unconscious processing seems to be comparably limited (Tong et al, 2006; Almeida et al, 2008; Lin and He, 2009). For example, a number of studies have failed to obtain evidence for unconscious processing of facial features rendered invisible through CFS (Moradi et al, 2005; Shin et al, 2009; Yang et al, 2010; Amihai et al, 2011; Stein and Sterzer, 2011; Stein et al, 2012a; but see Adams et al, 2010; Xu et al, 2011; Barbot and Kouider, 2012). This indicates that backward masking represents a more sensitive technique for measuring unconscious high-level processing than interocular suppression.…”
Section: Classic Dissociation Approaches To Unconscious Processingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is also evidence of category-specific processing of suppressed faces in the FFA, using more sensitive analysis methods based on multivariate pattern classification (Sterzer et al, 2008). In addition, adaptation to suppressed face stimuli appears to strongly depend on spatial attention (Shin, Stolte, & Chong, 2009;Yang, Hong, & Blake, 2010).…”
Section: Increased Invisible Stimulation Reverses Priming Influencesmentioning
confidence: 99%