The recognition potential and conscious awareness.

The idea that conscious awareness of a recognizable image is necessary for it to evoke the recognition potential (RP) was tested by asking bilingual subjects to selectively attend to superimposed English and Chinese word images. The subjects detected most of the words in the attended language, but were largely oblivious of words in the non-attended language. Attended word images evoked the RP. Non-attended words did not. RP latency was less for Chinese than for English words. This provided a basis for inferring which language a subject was trying to read when valid English and Chinese words were both present. A subject was looking for Chinese if the latency was short and for English if it was long. The results showed that selective attention had a powerful effect on the RP. They supported the idea that conscious awareness is necessary for evoking it, though they did not rule out the theoretical possibility that some method not yet tested could be found that would block conscious awareness without blocking the RP. The sensitivity of the RP to what a subject is trying to see and its low variance seem to provide advantages for studying visual perception. It provides a short latency indicator of image processing that merits further investigation. Use of it may lead to a better understanding of visual perceptual processes.

[1]  Carol A. Fowler,et al.  Lexical access with and without awareness , 1981 .

[2]  Irvin Rock,et al.  The effect of inattention on form perception. , 1981 .

[3]  A P Rudell,et al.  The recognition potential contrasted with the P300. , 1991, The International journal of neuroscience.

[4]  G. Wolford.  A review of the literature with and without awareness , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Language-Related ERPs: Scalp Distributions and Modulation by Word Type and Semantic Priming , 1994, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  Albert Sydney Hornby,et al.  The Advanced learner's dictionary of current English with Chinese Translation , 1963 .

[7]  Daniel Holender,et al.  Conceptual, experimental, and theoretical indeterminacies in research on semantic activation without conscious identification , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  Margot J. Taylor.  Developmental changes in ERPs to visual language stimuli , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[9]  Bernard Renault,et al.  Latencies of event related potentials as a tool for studying motor processing organization , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[10]  E. Boring.  A new ambiguous figure. , 1930 .

[11]  E. Goldstein,et al.  Selective attention in vision: recognition memory for superimposed line drawings. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  R. Ragot,et al.  Perceptual and motor space representation: an event-related potential study. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[13]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[14]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Event-related potentials, lexical decision and semantic priming. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  L. Zusne.  Visual perception of form , 1970 .

[16]  U. Neisser,et al.  Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  A. Rudell.  Frequency of word usage and perceived word difficulty: Ratings of Kučera and Francis words , 1993 .

[18]  D. Navon.  On determining what is unconscious and what is perception , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  Bisensory stimulation: Inferring decision-related processes from the P300 component. , 1977 .

[20]  H Shibasaki,et al.  Components of the movement-related cortical potential and their scalp topography. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[21]  R. Cracco,et al.  Recognition potential: sensitivity to visual field stimulated. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[22]  M Hallett,et al.  Source analysis of scalp-recorded movement-related electrical potentials. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  D. C. Beardslee,et al.  Readings in perception , 1958 .

[24]  Stephen Wallace,et al.  Figure and Ground , 1982 .

[25]  Richard Ragot,et al.  P300, as a function of S—R compatibility and motor programming , 1981, Biological Psychology.

[26]  G H Fisher.  "Mother, father, and daughter": a three-aspect ambiguous figure. , 1968, The American journal of psychology.

[27]  A. Rudell.  Rapid stream stimulation and the recognition potential. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[28]  A Pfefferbaum,et al.  Apparent response incompatibility effects on P3 latency depend on the task. , 1986, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[29]  Richard Latto,et al.  Approaches to consciousness: Psychophysics or philosophy? , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[30]  M. Russell Harter,et al.  Effects of attention and arousal on visually evoked cortical potentials and reaction time in man , 1969 .

[31]  M. Rugg.  The effects of semantic priming and work repetition on event-related potentials. , 1985, Psychophysiology.

[32]  Stephen J. Lupker,et al.  Conscious identification: Where do you draw the line? , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[33]  M. Watkins,et al.  Recognition memory and the mere exposure effect. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Anatomical and Physiological Substrates of Event‐Related Potentials , 1984, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[35]  H. Shibasaki,et al.  Human auditory and somatosensory event-related potentials: effects of response condition and age. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[36]  E. Bisiach.  Through the looking-glass and what cognitive psychology found there , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[37]  L. Gilden,et al.  Summated human EEG potentials with voluntary movement. , 1966, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[38]  R. Zajonc.  Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[39]  W. Hays.  Statistics for psychologists , 1963 .

[40]  Daniel Holender,et al.  Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual masking: A survey and appraisal , 1986, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[41]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information , 1984 .

[42]  B. Renault,et al.  P300 and S-R compatibility: a reply to Magliero et al. , 1985, Psychophysiology.

[43]  P. Nunez,et al.  Electric fields of the brain , 1981 .

[44]  J. Kihlstrom.  The cognitive unconscious. , 1987, Science.

[45]  S A Hillyard,et al.  Electroretinograms reveal no evidence for centrifugal modulation of retinal inputs during selective attention in man. , 1986, Psychophysiology.

[46]  H H Kornhuber,et al.  Cerebral potentials preceding unilateral and simultaneous bilateral finger movements. , 1979, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[47]  Rolf Verleger,et al.  The true P3 is hard to see: Some comments on Kok's (1986) paper on degraded stimuli , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[48]  D. Ruchkin,et al.  Multiple sources of P3b associated with different types of information. , 1990, Psychophysiology.

[49]  John Polich,et al.  P300 in Clinical Applications: Meaning, Method, and Measurement , 1991 .

[50]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[51]  G McCarthy,et al.  Modulation of semantic processing by spatial selective attention. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[52]  M Hallett,et al.  Cortical topography of premotor and motor potentials preceding self-paced, voluntary movement of dominant and non-dominant hands. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[53]  E. Donchin.  Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.