scholarly journals Expectations alter the neural correlates of visual awareness in visual cortex

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 209-209
Author(s):  
K. Schmack ◽  
A. Gomez ◽  
M. Rothkirch ◽  
J.-D. Haynes ◽  
P. Sterzer
2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 1235-1243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marieke L. Schölvinck ◽  
Geraint Rees

Motion-induced blindness (MIB) is a visual phenomenon in which highly salient visual targets spontaneously disappear from visual awareness (and subsequently reappear) when superimposed on a moving background of distracters. Such fluctuations in awareness of the targets, although they remain physically present, provide an ideal paradigm to study the neural correlates of visual awareness. Existing behavioral data on MIB are consistent both with a role for structures early in visual processing and with involvement of high-level visual processes. To further investigate this issue, we used high field functional MRI to investigate signals in human low-level visual cortex and motion-sensitive area V5/MT while participants reported disappearance and reappearance of an MIB target. Surprisingly, perceptual invisibility of the target was coupled to an increase in activity in low-level visual cortex plus area V5/MT compared with when the target was visible. This increase was largest in retinotopic regions representing the target location. One possibility is that our findings result from an active process of completion of the field of distracters that acts locally in the visual cortex, coupled to a more global process that facilitates invisibility in general visual cortex. Our findings show that the earliest anatomical stages of human visual cortical processing are implicated in MIB, as with other forms of bistable perception.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Meijer ◽  
Pietro Marchesi ◽  
Jorge Mejias ◽  
Jorrit Montijn ◽  
Carien Lansink ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1621-1631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mika Koivisto ◽  
Simone Grassini ◽  
Niina Salminen-Vaparanta ◽  
Antti Revonsuo

Detecting the presence of an object is a different process than identifying the object as a particular object. This difference has not been taken into account in designing experiments on the neural correlates of consciousness. We compared the electrophysiological correlates of conscious detection and identification directly by measuring ERPs while participants performed either a task only requiring the conscious detection of the stimulus or a higher-level task requiring its conscious identification. Behavioral results showed that, even if the stimulus was consciously detected, it was not necessarily identified. A posterior electrophysiological signature 200–300 msec after stimulus onset was sensitive for conscious detection but not for conscious identification, which correlated with a later widespread activity. Thus, we found behavioral and neural evidence for elementary visual experiences, which are not yet enriched with higher-level knowledge. The search for the mechanisms of consciousness should focus on the early elementary phenomenal experiences to avoid the confounding effects of higher-level processes.


2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 1488-1497 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Fahrenfort ◽  
H. S. Scholte ◽  
V. A. F. Lamme

In masking, a stimulus is rendered invisible through the presentation of a second stimulus shortly after the first. Over the years, authors have typically explained masking by postulating some early disruption process. In these feedforward-type explanations, the mask somehow “catches up” with the target stimulus, disrupting its processing either through lateral or interchannel inhibition. However, studies from recent years indicate that visual perception—and most notably visual awareness itself—may depend strongly on cortico-cortical feedback connections from higher to lower visual areas. This has led some researchers to propose that masking derives its effectiveness from selectively interrupting these reentrant processes. In this experiment, we used electroencephalogram measurements to determine what happens in the human visual cortex during detection of a texture-defined square under nonmasked (seen) and masked (unseen) conditions. Electro-encephalogram derivatives that are typically associated with reentrant processing turn out to be absent in the masked condition. Moreover, extrastriate visual areas are still activated early on by both seen and unseen stimuli, as shown by scalp surface Laplacian current source-density maps. This conclusively shows that feedforward processing is preserved, even when subject performance is at chance as determined by objective measures. From these results, we conclude that masking derives its effectiveness, at least partly, from disrupting reentrant processing, thereby interfering with the neural mechanisms of figure-ground segmentation and visual awareness itself.


NeuroImage ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 2983-2993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loes Koelewijn ◽  
Julie R. Dumont ◽  
Suresh D. Muthukumaraswamy ◽  
Anina N. Rich ◽  
Krish D. Singh

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhicheng Lin

AbstractThe extent to which visual processing can proceed in the visual hierarchy without awareness determines the magnitude of perceptual delay. Increasing data demonstrate that primary visual cortex (V1) is involved in consciousness, constraining the magnitude of visual delay. This makes it possible that visual delay is actually within the optimal lengths to allow sufficient computation; thus it might be unnecessary to compensate for visual delay.The time delay problem – that perception lives slightly in the past as a result of neural conduction – has recently attracted a considerate amount of attention in the context of the flash-lag effect. The effect refers to a visual illusion wherein a brief flash of light and a continuously moving object that physically align in space and time are perceived to be displaced from one another – the flashed stimulus appears to lag behind the moving object (Krekelberg & Lappe 2001). In the target article, Nijhawan compellingly argues that delay compensation could be undertaken by a predictive process in the feedforward pathways in the vision system. Before jumping into the quest for the mechanism of delay compensation, however, I would like to argue that the magnitude of delay has been overestimated, and that it might even be unnecessary to compensate for such a delay.


1974 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond T. Bartus ◽  
Stephen H. Ferris

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 2816
Author(s):  
Taissa K. Lytchenko ◽  
Nathan H. Heller ◽  
Sharif Saleki ◽  
Peter U. Tse ◽  
Gideon P. Caplovitz

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document