The SSVEP tool as a marker of subjective visibility

Heering, Adélaïde de; Beauny, Arnaud; Vuillaume, Laurène; Salvesen, Leila; Cleeremans, Axel

doi:10.1101/588236

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Response-related signals increase confidence but not metacognitive performance

Filevich

Koß

Faivre³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractConfidence judgements are a central tool for research in metacognition. In a typical task, participants first perform perceptual (first-order) decisions and then rate their confidence in these decisions. The relationship between confidence and first-order accuracy is taken as measure of metacognitive performance. Confidence is often assumed to stem from decision-monitoring processes alone, but processes that co-occur with the first-order decision may also play a role in confidence formation. In fact, across a broad range of tasks, trials with quick reaction times to the first-order task are often judged with relatively higher confidence than those with slow responses. This robust finding suggests that confidence could be informed by a readout of reaction times in addition to decision-monitoring processes. To test this possibility, we assessed the contribution of response-related signals to confidence and, in particular, to metacognitive performance (i.e., a measure of the adequacy of these confidence judgements). In a factorial design, we measured the effect of making an overt (vs. covert) decision, as well as the effect of pairing a motor action to the stimulus about which the first-order decision is made. Against our expectations, we found no differences in overall confidence or metacognitive performance when first-order responses were covert as opposed to overt. Further, actions paired to visual stimuli presented led to higher confidence ratings, but did not affect metacognitive performance. These results suggest that some of the relationships between first-order decisional signals and confidence might indeed be correlational, and attributable to an upstream cognitive process, common to the two of them.

show abstract

Response-related signals increase confidence but not metacognitive performance

Filevich

Koß

Faivre³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Faces under continuous flash suppression capture attention faster than objects, but without a face evoked steady-state visual potential: Is curvilinearity responsible for the behavioral effect?

Engell

Quillian

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights 1• Faces presented outside of awareness do not evoke a steady-state visually evoked 2 potential. 3• This is true for both neutral and fearful faces. 4• However, faces do breakthrough interocular suppression faster than objects. 5• Curvilinear objects breakthrough interocular suppression faster than rectilinear objects. 6• The breakthrough time advantage for faces over objects is due to their curvilinearity. 7 8 Nonconscious face perception and curvilinearity 3 Abstract 1 Face perception is a vital part of human social interactions. The social value of faces makes their 2 efficient detection evolutionarily advantageous. It has been suggested that this might occur 3 nonconsciously, but experimental results are equivocal thus far. Here, we probe nonconscious 4 face perception using a novel combination of binocular rivalry with continuous flash 5 suppression, and steady-state visually evoked potentials. In the first two experiments, 6 participants viewed either non-face objects, neutral faces (Study 1), or fearful faces (Study 2). 7Consistent with the hypothesis that faces are processed nonconsciously, we found that faces 8 broke through suppression faster than objects. We did not, however, observe a concomitant face-9 selective SSVEP. Study 3 was run to reconcile this paradox. We hypothesized that the faster 10 breakthrough time was due to a mid-level visual feature, curvilinearity, rather than high-level 11 category membership, which would explain the behavioral difference without neural evidence of 12 face-selective processing. We tested this hypothesis by presenting participants with four different 13 groups of stimuli outside of conscious awareness: rectilinear objects (e.g., chessboard), 14 curvilinear objects (e.g., dartboard), faces, and objects that were not dominantly curvilinear or 15 rectilinear. We found that faces and curvilinear objects broke through suppression faster than 16 objects and rectilinear objects. Moreover, there was no difference between faces and curvilinear 17 objects. These results support our hypothesis that the observed behavioral advantage for faces is 18 due to their curvilinearity, rather than category membership. 19 20 Nonconscious face perception and curvilinearity 4

show abstract

Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance

Filevich

Koß

Faivre

2020

eNeuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confidence judgements are a central tool in metacognition research. In a typical task, participants first perform perceptual (first-order) decisions and then rate their confidence in these decisions. The relationship between confidence and first-order accuracy is taken as a measure of metacognitive performance. Confidence is often assumed to stem from decision-monitoring processes alone, but processes that co-occur with the first-order decision may also play a role in confidence formation. In fact, some recent studies have revealed that directly manipulating motor regions in the brain, or the time of first-order decisions relative to second-order ones affects confidence judgements. This finding suggests that confidence could be informed by a readout of reaction times in addition to decision-monitoring processes. To test this possibility, we assessed the contribution of response-related signals to confidence and, in particular, to metacognitive performance (i.e., a measure of the adequacy of these confidence judgements). In human volunteers, we measured the effect of making an overt (vs. covert) decision, as well as the effect of pairing an action to the stimulus about which the first-order decision is made. Against our expectations, we found no differences in overall confidence or metacognitive performance when first-order responses were covert as opposed to overt. Further, actions paired to visual stimuli presented led to higher confidence ratings, but did not affect metacognitive performance. These results suggest that confidence ratings do not always incorporate motor information. 4 Significance statement To measure metacognition, or the ability to monitor one s own thoughts, experimental tasks often require human volunteers to, first, make a perceptual decision (first-order task") and, then, rate their confidence in their own decision (second-order task"). In this paradigm, both first and second-order information could, in principle, influence confidence judgements. But only the latter is truly metacognitive. To determine whether confidence is a valid metacognitive measure, we compared confidence ratings between two conditions: with overt responses, where participants provided both first-and second-order responses; and with covert responses where participants reported their confidence in a decision that they had not executed. Removing first-order decisions did not affect confidence, which validates confidence as an introspective measure.

show abstract

The SSVEP tool as a marker of subjective visibility

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

Response-related signals increase confidence but not metacognitive performance

Response-related signals increase confidence but not metacognitive performance

Faces under continuous flash suppression capture attention faster than objects, but without a face evoked steady-state visual potential: Is curvilinearity responsible for the behavioral effect?

Response-Related Signals Increase Confidence But Not Metacognitive Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About