Top-down preparation modulates visual categorization but not subjective awareness of objects presented in natural backgrounds

HIGHLIGHTSTop‐down preparation influenced visual categorization but not awareness.Object substitution masking (OSM) reduced subjective visual awareness.Preparation influences at the top of the visual hierarchy.Lower level processes are critical for OSM and visual awareness. ABSTRACT Top‐down processes are widely assumed to be essential in visual awareness, subjective experience of seeing. However, previous studies have not tried to separate directly the roles of different types of top‐down influences in visual awareness. We studied the effects of top‐down preparation and object substitution masking (OSM) on visual awareness during categorization of objects presented in natural scene backgrounds. The results showed that preparation facilitated categorization but did not influence visual awareness. OSM reduced visual awareness and impaired categorization. The dissociations between the effects of preparation and OSM on visual awareness and on categorization imply that they influence at different stages of cognitive processing. We propose that preparation influences at the top of the visual hierarchy, whereas OSM interferes with processes occurring at lower levels of the hierarchy. These lower level processes play an essential role in visual awareness.

[1]  Michèle Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  The Characteristics and Limits of Rapid Visual Categorization , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[2]  Endel Põder,et al.  Attentional gating models of object substitution masking. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  Arno Koning,et al.  Multiple object tracking: anticipatory attention doesn't "bounce". , 2012, Journal of vision.

[4]  M. Overgaard,et al.  Introspection and subliminal perception , 2004 .

[5]  Floris P. de Lange,et al.  Expectations accelerate entry of visual stimuli into awareness. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[6]  Frouke Hermens,et al.  Comment on "Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes" (Di Lollo, Enns, & Rensink, 2000). , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  Troy A. W. Visser,et al.  Implicit semantic perception in object substitution masking , 2011, Cognition.

[8]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Object substitution without reentry , 2002 .

[9]  Michael L. Mack,et al.  The dynamics of categorization: Unraveling rapid categorization. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[11]  Jason B Mattingley,et al.  Size (mostly) doesn’t matter: the role of set size in object substitution masking , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[12]  M. Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  A need for more information uptake but not focused attention to access basic-level representations. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[13]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Rapid categorization of foveal and extrafoveal natural images: Associated ERPs and effects of lateralization , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[14]  Joseph T. Devlin,et al.  Orienting attention to semantic categories , 2006, NeuroImage.

[15]  Li Fei-Fei,et al.  Neural mechanisms of rapid natural scene categorization in human visual cortex , 2009, Nature.

[16]  T. Bachmann.  Unmasking the pitfalls of the masking method in consciousness research , 2015 .

[17]  S. Kastner,et al.  A neural basis for real-world visual search in human occipitotemporal cortex , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

[20]  V. Lamme,et al.  The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing , 2000, Trends in Neurosciences.

[21]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[22]  J. Enns,et al.  Object Substitution: A New Form of Masking in Unattended Visual Locations , 1997 .

[23]  Catherine Tallon-Baudry,et al.  Anchoring visual subjective experience in a neural model: The coarse vividness hypothesis , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  Simon J. Thorpe,et al.  Ultra-rapid object detection with saccadic eye movements: Visual processing speed revisited , 2006, Vision Research.

[25]  V. Lamme.  Towards a true neural stance on consciousness , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  Rocco Chiou,et al.  The anterior temporal cortex is a primary semantic source of top-down influences on object recognition , 2016, Cortex.

[27]  Michèle Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  Stimulus duration and diversity do not reverse the advantage for superordinate‐level representations: the animal is seen before the bird , 2014, The European journal of neuroscience.

[28]  Gregory Francis,et al.  Testing models of object substitution with backward masking , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  J. Sackur.  Two dimensions of visibility revealed by multidimensional scaling of metacontrast , 2013, Cognition.

[30]  Ehud Zohary,et al.  Two Phases of V1 Activity for Visual Recognition of Natural Images , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[31]  J. Bullier.  Integrated model of visual processing , 2001, Brain Research Reviews.

[32]  Paola Binda,et al.  Spatial attention increases the pupillary response to light changes. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[33]  Marius V Peelen,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : General Content-Specific Expectations Enhance Stimulus Detectability by Increasing Perceptual Sensitivity , 2015 .

[34]  Michael Pilling,et al.  Exogenous spatial precuing reliably modulates object processing but not object substitution masking , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[35]  Mika Koivisto,et al.  Recurrent Processing Enhances Visual Awareness but Is Not Necessary for Fast Categorization of Natural Scenes , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  Troy A. W. Visser,et al.  Delayed reentrant processing impairs visual awareness: An object substitution masking study , 2010 .

[37]  Olivier R. Joubert,et al.  The Time-Course of Visual Categorizations: You Spot the Animal Faster than the Bird , 2009, PloS one.

[38]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Decoupling stimulus duration from brightness in metacontrast masking: data and models. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  Michèle Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  At 120 msec You Can Spot the Animal but You Don't Yet Know It's a Dog , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[40]  Alejandro Lleras,et al.  On the role of object representations in substitution masking. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  Caspar M. Schwiedrzik,et al.  Expectations Change the Signatures and Timing of Electrophysiological Correlates of Perceptual Awareness , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[42]  C. Koch,et al.  Neural correlates of consciousness: progress and problems , 2016, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[43]  M. Koivisto,et al.  Recurrent Processing in V1/V2 Contributes to Categorization of Natural Scenes , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[44]  M. Koivisto,et al.  Unconscious vision spots the animal but not the dog: Masked priming of natural scenes , 2016, Consciousness and Cognition.

[45]  Marius V. Peelen,et al.  Preparatory Activity in Posterior Temporal Cortex Causally Contributes to Object Detection in Scenes , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[46]  Michael Pilling,et al.  Set size and mask duration do not interact in object-substitution masking. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  Kevin S. Autry,et al.  A fan effect in anaphor processing: effects of multiple distractors , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[48]  P. Perona,et al.  Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  Mika Koivisto,et al.  Is reentry critical for visual awareness of object presence? , 2012, Vision Research.

[50]  A. Gellatly,et al.  The role of distractors in object substitution masking. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.