A direct comparison of unconscious face processing under masking and interocular suppression

Different combinations of forward and backward masking as well as interocular suppression have been used extensively to render stimuli invisible and to study those aspects of visual stimuli that are processed in the absence of conscious experience. Although the two techniques—masking vs. interocular suppression—obviously differ both in their applications and mechanisms, only little effort has been made to compare them systematically. Yet, such a comparison is crucial: existing discrepancies in the extent of unconscious processing inferred from these two techniques must be reconciled, as our understanding of unconscious vision should be independent of the technique used to prevent visibility. Here, we studied similarities and differences between faces rendered invisible by masking vs. interocular suppression using a priming paradigm. By carefully equating stimulus strength across the two techniques, we analyzed the effects of face primes with the same viewpoint (repetition priming, Experiment 1) and of face primes with a different viewpoint (identity priming, Experiment 2) on the reaction times for a fame categorization task. Overall, we found that the magnitude of both repetition and identity priming largely depended on stimulus visibility. Moreover, when the primes were subjectively invisible, both repetition and identity priming were found to be qualitatively stronger under masking than under interocular suppression. Taken together, these results help refine our understanding of which level of visual processing each technique disrupts, and illustrate the importance of systematic methodological comparisons in the field of unconscious vision.

[1]  M. Damian Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: automaticity rather than semantic processing. , 2001 .

[2]  Philipp Sterzer,et al.  Rapid Fear Detection Relies on High Spatial Frequencies , 2014, Psychological science.

[3]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Measuring consciousness: Is one measure better than the other? , 2010, Consciousness and Cognition.

[4]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Activation by marginally perceptible ("subliminal") stimuli: dissociation of unconscious from conscious cognition. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  Richard N. A. Henson,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of masked face priming , 2008, NeuroImage.

[6]  G. Cumming,et al.  The New Statistics , 2014, Psychological science.

[7]  C. Koch,et al.  Inferring the direction of implied motion depends on visual awareness. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[8]  R. Blake,et al.  Neural bases of binocular rivalry , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  Sid Kouider,et al.  Nonconscious Influences from Emotional Faces: A Comparison of Visual Crowding, Masking, and Continuous Flash Suppression , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[10]  C. Koch,et al.  Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[12]  J. Hoffmann,et al.  Mechanisms of subliminal response priming , 2008, Advances in cognitive psychology.

[13]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  The SHINE toolbox for controlling low-level image properties , 2010 .

[14]  Greg O. Horne,et al.  Controlling low-level image properties: The SHINE toolbox , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[15]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[16]  P. Merikle,et al.  Distinguishing conscious from unconscious perceptual processes. , 1986, Canadian journal of psychology.

[17]  T. Shallice,et al.  Neuroimaging evidence for dissociable forms of repetition priming. , 2000, Science.

[18]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[19]  Sheng He,et al.  Seeing the invisible: The scope and limits of unconscious processing in binocular rivalry , 2008, Progress in Neurobiology.

[20]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  The Role of the Dorsal Visual Processing Stream in Tool Identification , 2010, Psychological science.

[21]  S. Kouider,et al.  Longer is not better: nonconscious overstimulation reverses priming influences under interocular suppression , 2011, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[22]  Richard N. Henson,et al.  Activity in Face-Responsive Brain Regions is Modulated by Invisible, Attended Faces: Evidence from Masked Priming , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[23]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: a critical review of visual masking , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[24]  Christof Koch,et al.  Face Adaptation Depends on Seeing the Face , 2005, Neuron.

[25]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness. , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Sid Kouider,et al.  Sustained invisibility through crowding and continuous flash suppression: a comparative review , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[27]  R. Whelan Effective Analysis of Reaction Time Data , 2008 .

[28]  M. Livingstone,et al.  Neuronal correlates of visibility and invisibility in the primate visual system , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Affect of the unconscious: Visually suppressed angry faces modulate our decisions , 2012, Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience.

[30]  M. Damian,et al.  Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: automaticity rather than semantic processing. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Psychophysical magic: rendering the visible ‘invisible’ , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.