↓ Skip to main content

Unconscious neural processing differs with method used to render stimuli invisible

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unconscious neural processing differs with method used to render stimuli invisible
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00601
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergey V. Fogelson, Peter J. Kohler, Kevin J. Miller, Richard Granger, Peter U. Tse

Abstract

Visual stimuli can be kept from awareness using various methods. The extent of processing that a given stimulus receives in the absence of awareness is typically used to make claims about the role of consciousness more generally. The neural processing elicited by a stimulus, however, may also depend on the method used to keep it from awareness, and not only on whether the stimulus reaches awareness. Here we report that the method used to render an image invisible has a dramatic effect on how category information about the unseen stimulus is encoded across the human brain. We collected fMRI data while subjects viewed images of faces and tools, that were rendered invisible using either continuous flash suppression (CFS) or chromatic flicker fusion (CFF). In a third condition, we presented the same images under normal fully visible viewing conditions. We found that category information about visible images could be extracted from patterns of fMRI responses throughout areas of neocortex known to be involved in face or tool processing. However, category information about stimuli kept from awareness using CFS could be recovered exclusively within occipital cortex, whereas information about stimuli kept from awareness using CFF was also decodable within temporal and frontal regions. We conclude that unconsciously presented objects are processed differently depending on how they are rendered subjectively invisible. Caution should therefore be used in making generalizations on the basis of any one method about the neural basis of consciousness or the extent of information processing without consciousness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 88 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 30%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 41%
Neuroscience 16 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 23 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2014.
All research outputs
#15,876,967
of 25,579,912 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,026
of 34,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,049
of 229,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#244
of 397 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,579,912 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 229,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 397 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.