File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: A distinction between perceptual blindness and attentional blindness (I): low-contrast versus attentional distraction

TitleA distinction between perceptual blindness and attentional blindness (I): low-contrast versus attentional distraction
Authors
KeywordsMedical sciences
Ophthalmology and optometry
Issue Date2009
PublisherAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. The Journal's web site is located at http://wwwjournalofvisionorg/
Citation
The 9th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS 2009), Naples, FL., 8-13 May 2009. In Journal of Vision, 2009, v. 9 n. 8, article 122 How to Cite?
AbstractConscious perception of a visual stimulus can be impaired both by decreasing the signal strength in the stimulus as well as by distracting attention from the stimulus. In the present study, we report a method that allows us to classify different types of psychophysical techniques for rendering visual stimuli invisible. In experiment 1, we varied the visibility for a luminance blob by varying its contrast. Subjects were asked to report the presence or absence of the luminance blob together with their confidence rating: high/mid/low. In experiment 2, we maintain the contrast of luminance blob well above threshold but varied its visibility by manipulating the difficulty of a concurrent central visual search task. Observers detect the presence of blob with confidence rating (high/mid/low) as in experiment 1 in addition to their search result. In both experiments, the target blob was presented only half of the trials. Between the two experiments, we identified conditions yielding a comparable d' and analyzed the confidence in “miss” trials in which subjects reported absence when the target was present. We found that subjects reported absence with high confidence when they missed a target due to low contrast, whereas they reported absence with little confidence when their attention was distracted. In the case of low-contrast stimuli, the confidence in reporting absence was as high as reporting absence in “correct rejection” trials in which no stimulus was presented. The distinct patterns in the confidence rating between the two types of blindness implies that blindness at a perceptual stage and attentional stage can be distinguished by objective measures based on a second-level signal detection framework.
DescriptionOpen Access Journal
This journal issue is the VSS 2009 Meeting abstracts
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132203
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.341
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.042

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKanai, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorTseng, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, SWen_US
dc.contributor.authorWalsh, Ven_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-21T09:01:35Z-
dc.date.available2011-03-21T09:01:35Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.citationThe 9th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS 2009), Naples, FL., 8-13 May 2009. In Journal of Vision, 2009, v. 9 n. 8, article 122en_US
dc.identifier.issn1534-7362-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132203-
dc.descriptionOpen Access Journal-
dc.descriptionThis journal issue is the VSS 2009 Meeting abstracts-
dc.description.abstractConscious perception of a visual stimulus can be impaired both by decreasing the signal strength in the stimulus as well as by distracting attention from the stimulus. In the present study, we report a method that allows us to classify different types of psychophysical techniques for rendering visual stimuli invisible. In experiment 1, we varied the visibility for a luminance blob by varying its contrast. Subjects were asked to report the presence or absence of the luminance blob together with their confidence rating: high/mid/low. In experiment 2, we maintain the contrast of luminance blob well above threshold but varied its visibility by manipulating the difficulty of a concurrent central visual search task. Observers detect the presence of blob with confidence rating (high/mid/low) as in experiment 1 in addition to their search result. In both experiments, the target blob was presented only half of the trials. Between the two experiments, we identified conditions yielding a comparable d' and analyzed the confidence in “miss” trials in which subjects reported absence when the target was present. We found that subjects reported absence with high confidence when they missed a target due to low contrast, whereas they reported absence with little confidence when their attention was distracted. In the case of low-contrast stimuli, the confidence in reporting absence was as high as reporting absence in “correct rejection” trials in which no stimulus was presented. The distinct patterns in the confidence rating between the two types of blindness implies that blindness at a perceptual stage and attentional stage can be distinguished by objective measures based on a second-level signal detection framework.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. The Journal's web site is located at http://wwwjournalofvisionorg/-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Visionen_US
dc.subjectMedical sciences-
dc.subjectOphthalmology and optometry-
dc.titleA distinction between perceptual blindness and attentional blindness (I): low-contrast versus attentional distractionen_US
dc.typeConference_Paperen_US
dc.identifier.emailTseng, C: tseng@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailWang, SW: SWWang@gmail.com-
dc.identifier.authorityTseng, C=rp00640en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1167/9.8.122-
dc.identifier.hkuros177441en_US
dc.identifier.volume9en_US
dc.identifier.issue8en_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.description.otherThe 9th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS 2009), Naples, FL., 8-13 May 2009. In Journal of Vision, 2009, v. 9 n. 8, article 122-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats