1. Neuroscience
Download icon

The SSVEP tracks attention, not consciousness, during perceptual filling-in

  1. Matthew J Davidson  Is a corresponding author
  2. Will Mithen
  3. Hinze Hogendoorn
  4. Jeroen JA van Boxtel
  5. Naotsugu Tsuchiya
  1. Oxford University, Australia
  2. Monash University, Australia
  3. University of Melbourne, Australia
Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 712
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e60031 doi: 10.7554/eLife.60031

Abstract

Research on the neural basis of conscious perception has almost exclusively shown that becoming aware of a stimulus leads to increased neural responses. By designing a novel form of perceptual filling-in (PFI) overlaid with a dynamic texture display, we frequency-tagged multiple disappearing targets as well as their surroundings. We show that in a PFI paradigm the disappearance of a stimulus and subjective invisibility are associated with increases in neural activity, as measured with steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEP), in electroencephalography (EEG). We also find that this increase correlates with alpha-band activity, a well-established neural measure of attention. These findings cast doubt on the direct relationship previously reported between the strength of neural activity and conscious perception, at least when measured with current tools, such as the SSVEP. Instead we conclude that SSVEP strength more closely measures changes in attention.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matthew J Davidson

    Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford, Australia
    For correspondence
    mjd070@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2088-040X
  2. Will Mithen

    School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Hinze Hogendoorn

    Psychology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jeroen JA van Boxtel

    School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2643-0474
  5. Naotsugu Tsuchiya

    School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4216-8701

Funding

ARC (FT120100619)

  • Naotsugu Tsuchiya

ARC (DP130100194)

  • Naotsugu Tsuchiya

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC #CF12/2542 - 2012001375).Students at Monash University, provided written informed consent prior to taking part

Reviewing Editor

  1. Valentin Wyart, école normale supérieure, PSL University, INSERM, France

Publication history

  1. Received: June 15, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 10, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 10, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: November 12, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: November 12, 2020 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record published: November 23, 2020 (version 4)

Copyright

? 2020, Davidson et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 712
    Page views
  • 89
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Claudia B?hm, Albert K Lee
    Research Article

    The prefrontal cortex (PFC)'s functions are thought to include working memory, as its activity can reflect information that must be temporarily maintained to realize the current goal. We designed a flexible spatial working memory task that required rats to navigate—after distractions and a delay—to multiple possible goal locations from different starting points and via multiple routes. This made the current goal location the key variable to remember, instead of a particular direction or route to the goal. However, across a broad population of PFC neurons, we found no evidence of current-goal-specific memory in any previously reported form—i.e. differences in the rate, sequence, phase or covariance of firing. This suggests such patterns do not hold working memory in the PFC when information must be employed flexibly. Instead, the PFC grouped locations representing behaviorally equivalent task features together, consistent with a role in encoding long-term knowledge of task structure.

    1. Neuroscience
    Dirk van Moorselaar et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Predictions based on learned statistical regularities in the visual world have been shown to facilitate attention and goal-directed behavior by sharpening the sensory representation of goal-relevant stimuli in advance. Yet, how the brain learns to ignore predictable goal-irrelevant or distracting information is unclear. Here, we used EEG and a visual search task in which the predictability of a distractor’s location and/or spatial frequency was manipulated to determine how spatial and feature distractor expectations are neurally implemented and reduce distractor interference. We find that expected distractor features could not only be decoded pre-stimulus, but their representation differed from the representation of that same feature when part of the target. Spatial distractor expectations did not induce changes in preparatory neural activity, but a strongly reduced Pd, an ERP index of inhibition. These results demonstrate that neural effects of statistical learning critically depend on the task relevance and dimension (spatial, feature) of predictions.