No effect of attentional modulation by spatial cueing in a masked numerical priming paradigm using continuous flash suppression (CFS).
Consciousness
Continuous flash suppression
Interocular suppression
Masked priming
Numerical priming
Priming
Spatial attention
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
01
09
2022
accepted:
30
11
2022
entrez:
12
1
2023
pubmed:
13
1
2023
medline:
14
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
One notion emerging from studies on unconscious visual processing is that different "blinding techniques" seem to suppress the conscious perception of stimuli at different levels of the neurocognitive architecture. However, even when only the results from a single suppression method are compared, the picture of the scope and limits of unconscious visual processing remains strikingly heterogeneous, as in the case of continuous flash suppression (CFS). To resolve this issue, it has been suggested that high-level semantic processing under CFS is facilitated whenever interocular suppression is attenuated by the removal of visuospatial attention. In this behavioral study, we aimed to further investigate this "CFS-attenuation-by-inattention" hypothesis in a numerical priming study using spatial cueing. Participants performed a number comparison task on a visible target number ("compare number to five"). Prime-target pairs were either congruent (both numbers smaller, or both larger than five) or incongruent. Based on the "CFS-attenuation-by-inattention" hypothesis, we predicted that reaction times (RTs) for congruent prime-target pairs should be faster than for incongruent ones, but only when the prime was presented at the uncued location. In the invisible condition, we observed no priming effects and thus no evidence in support of the "CFS-attenuation-by-inattention" hypothesis. In the visible condition, we found an inverse effect of prime-target congruency. Our results agree with the notion that the representation of CF-suppressed stimuli is fractionated, and limited to their basic, elemental features, thus precluding semantic processing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36632138
doi: 10.7717/peerj.14607
pii: 14607
pmc: PMC9828280
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14607Informations de copyright
©2022 Handschack et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Guido Hesselmann is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.
Références
Conscious Cogn. 2015 Sep;35:234-50
pubmed: 25704454
Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Nov 14;5:135
pubmed: 22102839
Cognition. 2003 Jun;88(2):223-42
pubmed: 12763320
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Jan;74(1):174-84
pubmed: 22033950
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Front Psychol. 2014 Jul 11;5:724
pubmed: 25071685
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
pubmed: 9176952
Conscious Cogn. 2015 Sep;35:251-9
pubmed: 25649867
Conscious Cogn. 2015 Jan;31:60-72
pubmed: 25460241
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Aug;8(8):1096-101
pubmed: 15995700
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020 Jun;82(3):1333-1354
pubmed: 31338826
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Mar;111(6):1190-202
pubmed: 24353304
Psychol Sci. 2014 Nov;25(11):2116-9
pubmed: 25239447
Psychol Sci. 2012 Oct 1;23(10):1159-67
pubmed: 22933458
Psychon Bull Rev. 2020 Dec;27(6):1071-1103
pubmed: 32671572
Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Jun;24(3):752-775
pubmed: 27753047
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jul;18(7):376-84
pubmed: 24768034
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Jan;51(1):588-93
pubmed: 19628736
J Vis. 2012 Mar 08;12(3):8
pubmed: 22408039
Front Psychol. 2017 May 23;8:835
pubmed: 28588539
Adv Cogn Psychol. 2011;7:120-31
pubmed: 22253674
Trends Cogn Sci. 2017 Oct;21(10):719-721
pubmed: 28690078
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Feb;71(2):403-11
pubmed: 19304629
Adv Cogn Psychol. 2021 Apr 06;17(1):3-14
pubmed: 35003402
Conscious Cogn. 2018 Sep;64:84-94
pubmed: 29871783
Psychol Methods. 2021 Jun;26(3):295-314
pubmed: 32673043
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Nov;147(11):1641-1659
pubmed: 30010373
Percept Psychophys. 2005 Apr;67(3):545-57
pubmed: 16119400
Exp Psychol. 2022 Jan;69(1):1-11
pubmed: 35272479
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1983 Oct;9(5):807-15
pubmed: 6227690
Perception. 2008;37(10):1520-8
pubmed: 19065856
Nature. 1998 Oct 8;395(6702):597-600
pubmed: 9783584
Neuroimage. 2015 Aug 1;116:149-57
pubmed: 25865144
Prog Neurobiol. 2009 Apr;87(4):195-211
pubmed: 18824061
Cortex. 2022 Aug;153:32-43
pubmed: 35576671
J Neurosci. 2011 Sep 21;31(38):13535-45
pubmed: 21940445
Front Psychol. 2014 Oct 01;5:1117
pubmed: 25324817
Neuropsychologia. 2013 Nov;51(13):2930-8
pubmed: 24096175
Percept Psychophys. 1988 Aug;44(2):133-41
pubmed: 3405739
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):472-481
pubmed: 28462505
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Aug;83(6):2510-2529
pubmed: 33973133
Conscious Cogn. 2022 Sep;104:103387
pubmed: 36007344
Nature. 1996 Oct 17;383(6601):616-8
pubmed: 8857535
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Apr;23(4):267-269
pubmed: 30795895
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 12;9(8):e104719
pubmed: 25116265
J Neurosci. 2016 May 18;36(20):5489-97
pubmed: 27194329
Front Psychol. 2014 May 19;5:453
pubmed: 24904469
Vision Res. 2011 Jul 1;51(13):1484-525
pubmed: 21549742