Influence of near threshold visual distractors on perceptual detection and reaching movements

The involvement of the human prefrontal cortex in the emergence of visual awareness

Exploring the neural mechanisms of awareness is a fundamental task of cognitive neuroscience. There is an ongoing dispute regarding the role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in the emergence of awareness, which is partially raised by the confound between report- and awareness-related activity. To address this problem, we designed a visual awareness task that can minimize report-related motor confounding. Our results show that saccadic latency is significantly shorter in the aware trials than in the unaware trials. Local field potential (LFP) data from six patients consistently show early (200-300ms) awareness-related activity in the PFC, including event-related potential and high-gamma activity. Moreover, the awareness state can be reliably decoded by the neural activity in the PFC since the early stage, and the neural pattern is dynamically changed rather than being stable during the representation of awareness. Furthermore, the enhancement of dynamic functional connectivity, through the phase modulation at low frequency, between the PFC and other brain regions in the early stage of the awareness trials may explain the mechanism of conscious access. These results indicate that the PFC is critically involved in the emergence of awareness.

Perception-action dissociations depend on the luminance contrast of the stimuli

The observation that near-threshold low-contrast visual distractors can equally influence perceptual state and goal-directed motor responses was recently taken as an argument against a sharp separation between a conscious vision for perception and an unconscious vision for action. However, data supporting the dual visual system theory have principally involved high-contrast stimuli. In the present study, we assessed the effect of varying the contrast of a near-threshold visual distractor while keeping its visibility constant with backward noise masks. Eight participants performed fast manual reaching movements toward a highly visible target while subsequently reporting the presence/absence of a near-threshold distractor appearing at the opposite location with respect to the body midline. For all distractor contrasts, hand trajectory deviations toward the distractor were observed when the distractor was present and detected. When the distractor remained undetected deviations also occurred, but for higher contrasts. The subliminal motor effect traditionally observed in visual masking studies may therefore primarily depend on the luminance contrast of the interfering stimuli. These results suggest that dissociations between perceptual and motor responses can be explained by a single-signal model involving differential thresholds for perception and action that are specifically modulated as a function of both the requirements of the task and the contrast level of the stimuli. Such modulation is compatible with neurophysiological accounts of visual masking in which feedforward activation to—and feedback activation from—higher visual areas are correlated with the actual presence of the stimulation and its conscious perception, respectively.

Distractor effect at initial stages of recognition depends on visual image properties

In the present study, we describe a new method for estimation of distractor effect at image viewing. Dynamics of gaze fixation duration was compared at presentation of distractor during recognition of two types of target stimuli: fading-in contour images and black static cross. Circular blue distractor was applied to a target stimulus at some fixation points during initial stages of image recognition. All stimuli were presented in the center of computer screen inside the foveal part of the vision field. Subjects received the following instructions: to fixate their gaze on target image, recognize target stimulus as quick as possible and press the keyboard button to stop a trial. Our experiments have shown that (i) the median of the distractor effect (increase of fixation duration) was significantly less in trials with fading-in contour images, than in trials with cross image presentation (415 and 610 ms, p < 0.05); (ii) fixation duration without distractors had no significant difference between fading-in image trials (390 ± 10 ms) and cross image trials (438 ± 22 ms); (iii) mean recognition time for fading-in images was significantly more than for cross image (13.9 ± 4.3 s, and 2.47 ± 0.84 s). Possible prospective to use the presented method are discussed.

Is handedness just response bias?

Although most people prefer to use the right hand for unimanual tasks, it is unknown whether handedness arises from response bias. Whether it does is a question inspired by signal detection theory. We drew on the framework of signal detection theory to assess bias and sensitivity in hand choice by asking right-handers to choose between two tasks-one performed with the left hand, and one performed with the right. For some participants, the left-hand task stayed constant while the right-hand task was varied. For other participants, the right-hand stayed constant while the left-hand task was varied. We reasoned that if hand preference only reflected bias, participants would choose the generally preferred hand to the same degree, regardless of whether its task was constant or varied. Our participants followed this strategy only to some extent, suggesting that bias and sensitivity both contribute to hand preference.