Exogenous attention to unseen objects?

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. shown that not all attended stimuli give rise to awareness. Controversy still remains over whether, and the extent to which, a dissociation between attention and awareness encompasses all forms of attention. For example, it has been suggested that attention without awareness is more readily demonstrated for voluntary, endogenous attention than its reflexive, exogenous counterpart. Here we examine whether exogenous attentional cueing can have selective behavioural effects on stimuli that nevertheless remain unseen.Using a task in which object-based attention has been shown in the absence of awareness,we remove all possible contingencies between cues and target stimuli to ensure that any cueing effects must be under purely exogenous control, and find evidence of exogenous object-based attention without awareness. In a second experiment we address whether this dissociation crucially depends on the method used to establish that the objects indeed remain unseen. Specifically, to confirm that objects are unseen we adopt appropriate signal detection task procedures, including those that retain parity with the primary attentional task (by requiring participants to discriminate the two types of trial that are used to measure an effect of attention). We show a significant object-based attention effect is apparent under conditions where the selected object indeed remains undetectable. General IntroductionHistorically, visual attention and visual awareness have often been viewed as being so intimately related that they may be considered aspects of a single underlying process. It is now well established that this is not the case -attention and awareness dissociate under many conditions (McCormick, 1997;Kentridge, Heywood & Weiskrantz, 1999Kentridge, Nijboer & Heywood, 2008;Bahrami, Carmel, Walsh, Rees & Lavie, 2008; Kanai, Tsuchiya & Verstraten, 2006). There is some ambiguity, however, in classic experimental designs manipulating spatial attention (e.g. Posner, 1980) as to whether the unit of attentional selection is a region of space or the object that occupies that space (see e.g.Mole, 2008). One might be perfectly aware of attending to a spatial location even when stimuli appearing at that location remain unseen.This ambiguity is resolved in tests of object-based attention. In this form of attention the 'object' of selection is explicitly provided by the experimenter and it is easy to distinguish between effects that are purely spatial and those involving selection of the cued object. For exa...

Dopamine and temporal attention: An attentional blink study in Parkinson's disease patients on and off medication

“…However, other researchers have argued that we are conscious of much more information we can cognitively access and report on (Lamme 2010; Block 2011). Research furthermore indicates that visual consciousness and attention can be (neurally) dissociated (Koch and Tsuchiya 2007; Wyart and Tallon-Baudry 2008; Norman et al 2015). Notably, not only AB studies (Slagter et al 2010; Slagter et al 2012), but also studies using simple backward masking tasks with only one stimulus (Christensen et al 2006; Van Opstal et al 2014; Bisenius et al 2015), in which conscious access is not dependent on attentional selection as in the AB task (Dehaene and Changeux 2011), have reported greater activity in the striatum to consciously perceived stimuli.…”

Subliminal or not? Comparing null-hypothesis and Bayesian methods for testing subliminal priming

“…Curiously, a mixed strategy has also been used in which the direct measure is tested using B, whereas a p-value is still used to test the indirect measure (e.g., Norman et al, 2015). This mixed method is probably used because the main advantage of B over the p-value is when H 0 is the hypothesis of interest.…”

“…Furthermore, experiments vary in their sample size (N) and number of trials (n) used. Therefore, we decided to vary these parameters based on previous studies (e.g., González-García et al, 2015;Huang et al, 2014;Jusyte & Schönenberg, 2014;Kido & Makioka, 2015;Kiefer et al, 2015;Lin & Murray, 2015;Marcos Malmierca, 2015;Norman et al, 2015;Ocampo, 2015;Ocampo et al, 2015;Schoeberl et al, 2015;Wildegger et al, 2015) systematically in two simulations.…”

“…Proponents of the double ttest method are also of course aware of this, but would argue that the strategy still can, and indeed does, do a good job of identifying subliminal priming. Therefore, the double t-test remains the most popular analytical method in research into subliminal priming (e.g., González-García, Tudela, & Ruz, 2015;Huang, Tan, Soon, & Hsieh, 2014;Jusyte & Schönenberg, 2014;Kido & Makioka, 2015;Kiefer et al, 2015;Lin & Murray, 2015;Marcos Malmierca, 2015;Norman, Heywood, & Kentridge, 2015;Ocampo, 2015;Ocampo, Al-Janabi, & Finkbeiner, 2015;Schoeberl, Fuchs, Theeuwes, & Ansorge, 2015;Wildegger, Myers, Humphreys, & Nobre, 2015).…”

Exploring the visual (un)conscious

“…Using the classic object-based attention paradigm developed by Egly, Driver, and Rafal (1994), Norman, Heywood and Kentridge (2015) extend our knowledge of deployment of attention by unconsciously processed stimuli by showing that significant effects of object-based attention can be obtained for visual objects that are processed at unconscious levels.…”