File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: A distinction between perceptual blindness and attentional blindness (II): backward masking versus attentional blink

TitleA distinction between perceptual blindness and attentional blindness (II): backward masking versus attentional blink
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 155 How to Cite?
AbstractVarious psychophysical techniques have been proven successful tools to render visual inputs subjectively invisible. For example, backward masking obstructs the awareness of a prior stimulus, and the masked stimulus remains invisible even with full attention at the correct spatiotemporal location. In contrast, observers would miss the presence of a strong stimulus if their attention were not directed to the stimulus. These two examples both demonstrate observers' failure to detect a stimulus. However, it remains unknown whether the nature of unawareness between those techniques is the same. Here we developed a method for classifying different types of psychophysical blinding techniques such as in current study, backward masking and attentional blink (AB). In experiment 1, we impaired the visibility of a target luminance blob by presenting a mask immediately after. The observers' detection accuracy deteriorated as a function of ISI between the target and the mask. In experiment 2, we used AB to impair the visibility of the letter ‘X’ embedded in a RSVP letter stream by manipulating the lag between letter ‘X’ and another attention-catching marker. In both experiments, the target was presented on half of the trials, and subjects were asked to report the presence or absence of the target together with their subjective confidence rating (high/med/low). Our analysis showed that subjects were equally highly confident in reporting absence in ‘missed’ and ‘correct-rejection’ trials in backward masking, suggesting the unaware experience due to backward masking (miss) is subjectively similar to physical absence (correct-rejection). In AB, observers' confidence decreased together with the objective performance, implying that observers were aware of the transient attentional impairment. This distinct pattern in confidence rating supports the hypothesis that impairments in unconscious perception can be classified into sensory and attentional mechanisms, and this is in line with the view that perceptual (un)awareness involves multi-stage processing.
DescriptionOpen Access Journal
This journal issue is the VSS 2009 Meeting abstracts
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132205
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.341
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.042

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTseng, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorKanai, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, YLen_US
dc.contributor.authorWalsh, Ven_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-21T09:01:37Z-
dc.date.available2011-03-21T09:01:37Z-
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 155en_US
dc.identifier.issn1534-7362-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/132205-
dc.descriptionOpen Access Journal-
dc.descriptionThis journal issue is the VSS 2009 Meeting abstracts-
dc.description.abstractVarious psychophysical techniques have been proven successful tools to render visual inputs subjectively invisible. For example, backward masking obstructs the awareness of a prior stimulus, and the masked stimulus remains invisible even with full attention at the correct spatiotemporal location. In contrast, observers would miss the presence of a strong stimulus if their attention were not directed to the stimulus. These two examples both demonstrate observers' failure to detect a stimulus. However, it remains unknown whether the nature of unawareness between those techniques is the same. Here we developed a method for classifying different types of psychophysical blinding techniques such as in current study, backward masking and attentional blink (AB). In experiment 1, we impaired the visibility of a target luminance blob by presenting a mask immediately after. The observers' detection accuracy deteriorated as a function of ISI between the target and the mask. In experiment 2, we used AB to impair the visibility of the letter ‘X’ embedded in a RSVP letter stream by manipulating the lag between letter ‘X’ and another attention-catching marker. In both experiments, the target was presented on half of the trials, and subjects were asked to report the presence or absence of the target together with their subjective confidence rating (high/med/low). Our analysis showed that subjects were equally highly confident in reporting absence in ‘missed’ and ‘correct-rejection’ trials in backward masking, suggesting the unaware experience due to backward masking (miss) is subjectively similar to physical absence (correct-rejection). In AB, observers' confidence decreased together with the objective performance, implying that observers were aware of the transient attentional impairment. This distinct pattern in confidence rating supports the hypothesis that impairments in unconscious perception can be classified into sensory and attentional mechanisms, and this is in line with the view that perceptual (un)awareness involves multi-stage processing.-
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 (II): backward masking versus attentional blinken_US
dc.typeConference_Paperen_US
dc.identifier.emailTseng, C: tseng@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityTseng, C=rp00640en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_OA_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1167/9.8.155-
dc.identifier.hkuros177450en_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 155-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats