z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
A distinction between perceptual blindness and attentional blindness (II): backward masking versus attentional blink
Author(s) -
Chia-huei Tseng,
Ryota Kanai,
Yu-luen Lin,
Vincent Walsch
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of vision
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.126
H-Index - 113
ISSN - 1534-7362
DOI - 10.1167/9.8.155
Subject(s) - backward masking , attentional blink , stimulus (psychology) , rapid serial visual presentation , visual masking , psychology , perception , luminance , audiology , psychophysics , blindness , cognitive psychology , stimulus onset asynchrony , visual perception , computer science , artificial intelligence , neuroscience , optometry , medicine
Open Access JournalThis journal issue is the VSS 2009 Meeting abstractsVarious psychophysical techniques have been proven successful tools to render visual inputs subjectively invisible. For example, backward masking obstructs the awareness of a prior stimulus, and the masked stimulus remains invisible even with full attention at the correct spatiotemporal location. In contrast, observers would miss the presence of a strong stimulus if their attention were not directed to the stimulus. These two examples both demonstrate observers' failure to detect a stimulus. However, it remains unknown whether the nature of unawareness between those techniques is the same. Here we developed a method for classifying different types of psychophysical blinding techniques such as in current study, backward masking and attentional blink (AB). In experiment 1, we impaired the visibility of a target luminance blob by presenting a mask immediately after. The observers' detection accuracy deteriorated as a function of ISI between the target and the mask. In experiment 2, we used AB to impair the visibility of the letter ‘X’ embedded in a RSVP letter stream by manipulating the lag between letter ‘X’ and another attention-catching marker. In both experiments, the target was presented on half of the trials, and subjects were asked to report the presence or absence of the target together with their subjective confidence rating (high/med/low). Our analysis showed that subjects were equally highly confident in reporting absence in ‘missed’ and ‘correct-rejection’ trials in backward masking, suggesting the unaware experience due to backward masking (miss) is subjectively similar to physical absence (correct-rejection). In AB, observers' confidence decreased together with the objective performance, implying that observers were aware of the transient attentional impairment. This distinct pattern in confidence rating supports the hypothesis that impairments in unconscious perception can be classified into sensory and attentional mechanisms, and this is in line with the view that perceptual (un)awareness involves multi-stage processing.link_to_OA_fulltextThe 9th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society (VSS 2009), Naples, FL., 8-13 May 2009. In Journal of Vision, 2009, v. 9 n. 8, article 15

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here