↓ Skip to main content

Isolating neural correlates of conscious perception from neural correlates of reporting one's perception

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 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
Isolating neural correlates of conscious perception from neural correlates of reporting one's perception
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01078
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. Pitts, Stephen Metzler, Steven A. Hillyard

Abstract

To isolate neural correlates of conscious perception (NCCs), a standard approach has been to contrast neural activity elicited by identical stimuli of which subjects are aware vs. unaware. Because conscious experience is private, determining whether a stimulus was consciously perceived requires subjective report: e.g., button-presses indicating detection, visibility ratings, verbal reports, etc. This reporting requirement introduces a methodological confound when attempting to isolate NCCs: The neural processes responsible for accessing and reporting one's percept are difficult to distinguish from those underlying the conscious percept itself. Here, we review recent attempts to circumvent this issue via a modified inattentional blindness paradigm (Pitts et al., 2012) and present new data from a backward masking experiment in which task-relevance and visual awareness were manipulated in a 2 × 2 crossed design. In agreement with our previous inattentional blindness results, stimuli that were consciously perceived yet not immediately accessed for report (aware, task-irrelevant condition) elicited a mid-latency posterior ERP negativity (~200-240 ms), while stimuli that were accessed for report (aware, task-relevant condition) elicited additional components including a robust P3b (~380-480 ms) subsequent to the mid-latency negativity. Overall, these results suggest that some of the NCCs identified in previous studies may be more closely linked with accessing and maintaining perceptual information for reporting purposes than with encoding the conscious percept itself. An open question is whether the remaining NCC candidate (the ERP negativity at 200-240 ms) reflects visual awareness or object-based attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 153 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 23%
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 5%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 33 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 31%
Neuroscience 32 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Philosophy 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 36 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,358,069
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,245
of 29,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,607
of 255,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#162
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 255,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.