Pilipenko April, De La Torre Jessica, Nukala Vrishab, Samaha Jason
Department of Psychology, University of California, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA.
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Neurosci Conscious. 2025 Sep 22;2025(1):niaf031. doi: 10.1093/nc/niaf031. eCollection 2025.
A major distinction in early visual processing is the magnocellular (MC) and parvocellular (PC) pathways. Prior work has theorized that the PC pathway more strongly contributes to conscious object recognition projections to the ventral what'' visual pathway, whereas the MC pathway underlies non-conscious, action-oriented motion and localization processing the dorsal stream where/how'' pathway. This invites the question: are we equally aware of activity in both pathways? And if not, do task demands interact with which pathway is more accessible to awareness? We investigated this question in a set of two studies measuring participants' metacognition for stimuli biased toward MC or PC processing. The "Steady/Pulsed Paradigm" has two conditions that present brief stimuli alongside temporally distinct luminance pedestals, thought to bias stimulus processing to either pathway. Experiment 1 was a spatial localization task thought to rely on information relayed from the MC pathway. Using both a model-based and model-free approach to quantify participants' metacognitive sensitivity to their own task performance, we found greater metacognitive efficiency in the steady (MC-biased) condition compared to the pulsed (PC-biased) condition. Experiment 2 was a fine-grained orientation-discrimination task more reliant on PC pathway information. Our results show an abolishment of the MC pathway advantage seen in Experiment 1 and suggest that the advantage in metacognitive efficiency for MC processing may hold for stimulus localization tasks only. More generally, our results highlight the need to consider the possibility of differential access to low-level stimulus properties in studies of visual metacognition.
早期视觉处理中的一个主要区别是大细胞(MC)和小细胞(PC)通路。先前的研究提出理论,认为PC通路对有意识的物体识别有更强的贡献,投射到腹侧“什么”视觉通路,而MC通路则是无意识的、以行动为导向的运动和定位处理的基础,即背侧流“哪里/如何”通路。这就引发了一个问题:我们对这两条通路中的活动是否同样有意识?如果不是,任务需求是否会与哪条通路更容易被意识到相互作用?我们在一组两项研究中调查了这个问题,测量参与者对偏向MC或PC处理的刺激的元认知。“稳定/脉冲范式”有两种条件,会在时间上不同的亮度基座旁边呈现短暂刺激,据认为这会使刺激处理偏向于其中一条通路。实验1是一项空间定位任务,被认为依赖于从MC通路传递的信息。我们使用基于模型和无模型的方法来量化参与者对自己任务表现的元认知敏感性,发现与脉冲(PC偏向)条件相比,在稳定(MC偏向)条件下元认知效率更高。实验2是一项更依赖PC通路信息的细粒度方向辨别任务。我们的结果显示,实验1中看到的MC通路优势消失了,并表明MC处理在元认知效率方面的优势可能仅适用于刺激定位任务。更普遍地说,我们的结果强调了在视觉元认知研究中需要考虑对低水平刺激属性的不同可及性的可能性。