Department of Psychology, Reed College Portland, OR, USA.
Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Front Psychol. 2014 Oct 8;5:1078. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01078. eCollection 2014.
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.
为了分离意识知觉的神经关联(NCCs),一种标准方法是对比被试有意识和无意识感知的相同刺激所引发的神经活动。由于意识体验是私人的,确定一个刺激是否被有意识地感知需要主观报告:例如,表明检测、可见性评分、口头报告等的按钮按压。当试图分离 NCCs 时,这种报告要求引入了一种方法上的混淆:负责访问和报告感知的神经过程很难与意识感知本身的神经过程区分开来。在这里,我们回顾了最近通过修改的疏忽盲视范式(Pitts 等人,2012)来解决这个问题的尝试,并提出了一个新的实验数据,该实验使用 2×2 交叉设计来操纵任务相关性和视觉意识。与我们之前的疏忽盲视结果一致,那些被有意识地感知但没有立即报告的刺激(有意识、任务不相关条件)引发了一个中潜伏期后 ERP 负性(200-240 ms),而那些被报告的刺激(有意识、任务相关条件)引发了包括一个强大的 P3b(380-480 ms)在内的额外成分,紧随中潜伏期负性之后。总的来说,这些结果表明,以前研究中确定的一些 NCCs 可能与为报告目的而访问和维持感知信息的过程更密切相关,而不是与编码有意识感知本身更密切相关。一个悬而未决的问题是,剩下的 NCC 候选(200-240 ms 的 ERP 负性)是否反映了视觉意识还是基于对象的注意力。