» Articles » PMID: 25339922

Isolating Neural Correlates of Conscious Perception from Neural Correlates of Reporting One's Perception

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2014 Oct 24
PMID 25339922
Citations 63
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To isolate neural correlates of conscious perception (NCCs), a standard approach has been to contrast neural activity elicited by identical stimuli of which subjects are aware vs. unaware. Because conscious experience is private, determining whether a stimulus was consciously perceived requires subjective report: e.g., button-presses indicating detection, visibility ratings, verbal reports, etc. This reporting requirement introduces a methodological confound when attempting to isolate NCCs: The neural processes responsible for accessing and reporting one's percept are difficult to distinguish from those underlying the conscious percept itself. Here, we review recent attempts to circumvent this issue via a modified inattentional blindness paradigm (Pitts et al., 2012) and present new data from a backward masking experiment in which task-relevance and visual awareness were manipulated in a 2 × 2 crossed design. In agreement with our previous inattentional blindness results, stimuli that were consciously perceived yet not immediately accessed for report (aware, task-irrelevant condition) elicited a mid-latency posterior ERP negativity (~200-240 ms), while stimuli that were accessed for report (aware, task-relevant condition) elicited additional components including a robust P3b (~380-480 ms) subsequent to the mid-latency negativity. Overall, these results suggest that some of the NCCs identified in previous studies may be more closely linked with accessing and maintaining perceptual information for reporting purposes than with encoding the conscious percept itself. An open question is whether the remaining NCC candidate (the ERP negativity at 200-240 ms) reflects visual awareness or object-based attention.

Citing Articles

Perceptual experience in somatosensory temporal discrimination is indexed by a mid-latency fronto-central ERP difference.

Forster J, Nierhaus T, Schroder P, Blankenburg F Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):7674.

PMID: 40044841 PMC: 11882922. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-91580-1.


Context-Sensitive Conscious Interpretation and Layer-5 Pyramidal Neurons in Multistable Perception.

Bachmann T Brain Behav. 2025; 15(3):e70393.

PMID: 40038853 PMC: 11879900. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.70393.


Event-related potentials of stimuli inhibition and access in cross-modal distractor-induced blindness.

Hanke S, Niedeggen M PLoS One. 2024; 19(10):e0309425.

PMID: 39441852 PMC: 11498723. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309425.


The influence of feature-based attention and response requirements on ERP correlates of auditory awareness.

Filimonov D, Krabbe A, Revonsuo A, Koivisto M Neurosci Conscious. 2024; 2024(1):niae031.

PMID: 39045031 PMC: 11265865. DOI: 10.1093/nc/niae031.


An embarrassment of richnesses: the PFC isn't the content NCC.

Kozuch B Neurosci Conscious. 2024; 2024(1):niae017.

PMID: 38938921 PMC: 11210398. DOI: 10.1093/nc/niae017.


References
1.
Tallon-Baudry C . On the neural mechanisms subserving consciousness and attention. Front Psychol. 2012; 2:397. PMC: 3253412. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00397. View

2.
Logothetis N, Schall J . Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception. Science. 1989; 245(4919):761-3. DOI: 10.1126/science.2772635. View

3.
Dehaene S, Naccache L . Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition. 2001; 79(1-2):1-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2. View

4.
Batterink L, Karns C, Neville H . Dissociable mechanisms supporting awareness: the P300 and gamma in a linguistic attentional blink task. Cereb Cortex. 2011; 22(12):2733-44. PMC: 3491763. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr346. View

5.
Koivisto M, Revonsuo A . Electrophysiological correlates of visual consciousness and selective attention. Neuroreport. 2007; 18(8):753-6. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3280c143c8. View