Attention and Mental Primer

Abstract

Drawing on the empirical premise that attention makes objects look more intense (bigger, faster, higher in contrast), Ned Block has argued for mental paint, a phenomenal residue that cannot be reduced to what is perceived or represented. If sound, Block's argument would undermine direct realism and representationism, two widely held views about the nature of conscious perception. We argue that Block's argument fails because the empirical premise it is based upon is false. Attending to an object alters its salience, but not its perceived intensity. We also argue that salience should be equated with mental primer, a close cousin of mental paint that reintroduces difficulties for direct realism and representationism. The upshot is that direct realism and representationism are still in trouble, but not for the reason that Block thinks.

Stimulus visibility controls the balance between attention-induced changes in contrast appearance and decision bias

“…The debate about whether our subjective perceptual experience is influenced by higher cognitive functions such as attention is a contentious issue in neuroscience, psychology and philosophy (Anton-Erxleben et al, 2010, 2011Beck & Schneider, 2016;Block, 2010;Carrasco et al, 2004;Firestone & Scholl, 2015;Fodor, 1984;Helmholtz, 1866;James, 1890;Ling & Carrasco, 2007;Prinzmetal et al, 1996;Pylyshyn, 1999;Raftopoulos, 2001;Schneider & Komlos, 2008;Schneider, 2011). Here, we show that the effects of spatial attention on visual appearance and on response bias can coexist and that the balance between these two types of modulation depends upon stimulus visibility.…”

“…Using a similar method, other studies have demonstrated that the effect of attention on appearance generalizes to other stimulus features including spatial frequency (Gobell & Carrasco, 2005), object shape and size (Anton-Erxleben, Henrich, & Treue, 2007;Fortenbaugh, Prinzmetal, & Robertson, 2011), and facial attractiveness (Störmer & Alvarez, 2016). However, in another set of studies, Schneider and collegues argue that these changes in appearance are instead related to response bias induced by the attention cues (Beck & Schneider, 2016;Schneider & Komlos, 2008;Schneider, 2006Schneider, , 2011. In support of this view, other studies have shown that attention can induce a response bias in a way that makes observers more likely to respond to a cued attended stimulus compared to an un-cued unattended stimulus (Luo & Maunsell, 2015;Müller & Findlay, 1987;Wyart, Nobre, & Summerfield, 2012).…”

“…Despite the wealth of studies showing that attention facilitates behavioral performance by enhancing the efficiency of sensory information processing (Anton-Erxleben & Carrasco, 2013;Carrasco, 2011;Itthipuripat & Serences, 2015;Serences & Kastner, 2014;Sprague, Saproo, & Serences, 2015), a contentious debate about whether attention can actually alter the subjective visual experience has continued for over 100 years ( Anton-Erxleben, Abrams, & Carrasco, 2010, 2011Beck & Schneider, 2016;Block, 2007Block, , 2010Fodor, 1984;Helmholtz, 1866;James, 1890;Ling & Carrasco, 2007;Prinzmetal et al, 1996;Pylyshyn, 1999;Raftopoulos, 2001;Schneider & Komlos, 2008;Schneider, 2011).…”

The Eye's Mind: Perceptual Process and Epistemic Norms

“…34. See Beck and Schneider (2017) for dissent from this interpretation, and discussion of the results. 35.…”

Cognitive Penetration and Attention

“…It would only have that kind of effect post-perceptually, at the level of perception-based judgment. (See Beck and Schneider, forthcoming for philosophical discussion, replying to Block, 2010 .) If these moves (or others) were to pan out, they would vindicate Pylyshyn’s claim that attentional effects—or at least the relevant ones—are all external to early vision.…”