Preserved sensory processing but hampered conflict detection when stimulus input is task-irrelevant

Abstract

Conflict detection in sensory input is central to adaptive human behavior. Perhaps unsurprisingly, past research has shown that conflict may even be detected in absence of conflict awareness, suggesting that conflict detection is an automatic process that does not require attention. To test the possibility of conflict processing in the absence of attention, we manipulated task relevance and response overlap of potentially conflicting stimulus features across six behavioral tasks. Multivariate analyses on human electroencephalographic data revealed neural signatures of conflict only when at least one feature of a conflicting stimulus was attended, regardless of whether that feature was part of the conflict, or overlaps with the response. In contrast, neural signatures of basic sensory processes were present even when a stimulus was completely unattended. These data reveal an attentional bottleneck at the level of objects, suggesting that object-based attention is a prerequisite for cognitive control operations involved in conflict detection.

Catecholaminergic neuromodulation and selective attention jointly shape perceptual decision-making

“…The same issue is crucial in studying the influence of other contextual factors on perception/behavior, such as serial dependencies of stimuli or choices (37),( 73), (74) . Here we provide evidence that the effects of arousal seem to manifest relatively late in time, close to the decision stage ( 24)-( 26),( 54), (75) , whereas the effects of attention were observable at relatively early stages in the cortical hierarchy, in line with a large body of work ( 76)- (79) . Our findings do not settle the debate on the role of prestimulus excitability on perceptual decision making, but do highlight that cortical excitability is under the control of various factors -such as attention and arousal-that shape sensory processing differentially and therefore need to be considered when addressing the effect of prestimulus excitability on perception.…”

Catecholaminergic neuromodulation and selective attention jointly shape perceptual decision-making

“…Here we provide evidence that cholinergic and catecholaminergic neuromodulation seem to affect stimulus-locked neural responses relatively late in time (close to the execution of the motor response), whereas the effects of attention were observable much earlier. This corroborates earlier findings showing, respectively, late and early effects of neuromodulation and attention on cortical activity (Alilović et al, 2019;Baumgartner et al, 2018;Gelbard-Sagiv et al, 2018;Hillyard & Anllo-Vento, 1998;Loughnane et al, 2019;Murphy et al, 2011;Nuiten et al, 2021;Poort et al, 2012). Although, based on the timing of these effects, it might be tempting to conclude that attention primarily modulates (early) perceptual processes and neuromodulation (late) decisional processes, this conclusion is at present premature.…”

“…The same issue is crucial in studying the influence of other contextual factors on perception/behavior, such as serial dependencies of stimuli or choices 37,73,74 . Here we provide evidence that the effects of arousal seem to manifest relatively late in time, close to the decision stage [24][25][26]54,75 , whereas the effects of attention were observable at relatively early stages in the cortical hierarchy, in line with a large body of work [76][77][78][79] . Our findings do not settle the debate on the role of prestimulus excitability on perceptual decision making, but do highlight that cortical excitability is under the control of various factors -such as attention and arousalthat shape sensory processing differentially and therefore need to be considered when addressing the effect of prestimulus excitability on perception.…”

Distinct neural mechanisms underlying perceptual and attentional impairments of conscious access

“…Furthermore, previous research has shown that the impact of inattention vs. masking can depend on the neural architecture required for the task at hand. For example, processes related to the detection of conflicting response tendencies, a hallmark of cognitive control and strongly associated with the prefrontal cortex (Ridderinkhof et al, 2004), are more susceptible to inattention, which reduces the depth of stimulus processing (Nuiten et al, 2021) than to masking, restricting recurrent interactions, but allowing for deep feedforward processing (all the way up to prefrontal cortex) (Jiang et al, 2018; van Gaal et al, 2008). Thus, the preservation of local recurrent interactions appears to be particularly important for perceptual integration, aligning with the influential notion that perceptual segmentation and organization may represent the mechanism of conscious experience (Lamme, 2020).…”