Attention and consciousness: two distinct brain processes.

Division of Biology 216-76, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Impact Factor: 21.15). 02/2007; 11(1):16-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The close relationship between attention and consciousness has led many scholars to conflate these processes. This article summarizes psychophysical evidence, arguing that top-down attention and consciousness are distinct phenomena that need not occur together and that can be manipulated using distinct paradigms. Subjects can become conscious of an isolated object or the gist of a scene despite the near absence of top-down attention; conversely, subjects can attend to perceptually invisible objects. Furthermore, top-down attention and consciousness can have opposing effects. Such dissociations are easier to understand when the different functions of these two processes are considered. Untangling their tight relationship is necessary for the scientific elucidation of consciousness and its material substrate.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To interact effectively with the environment the brain integrates signals from multiple senses. It is currently unclear to what extent spatial information can be integrated across different senses in the absence of awareness. Combining dynamic continuous flash suppression (CFS) and spatial audiovisual stimulation, the current study investigated whether a sound facilitates a concurrent visual flash to elude flash suppression and enter perceptual awareness depending on audiovisual spatial congruency. Our results demonstrate that a concurrent sound boosts unaware visual signals into perceptual awareness. Critically, this process depended on the spatial congruency of the auditory and visual signals pointing towards low level mechanisms of audiovisual integration. Moreover, the concurrent sound biased the reported location of the flash as a function of flash visibility. The spatial bias of sounds on reported flash location was strongest for flashes that were judged invisible. Our results suggest that multisensory integration is a critical mechanism that enables signals to enter conscious perception.
    Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 02/2015; 9:16. DOI:10.3389/fnint.2015.00016
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Whether or not awareness entails attention is a much debated question. Since iconic memory has been generally assumed to be attention-free, it has been considered an important piece of evidence that it does not (Koch & Tsuchiya, 2007). Therefore the question of the role of attention in iconic memory matters. Recent evidence (Persuh, Genzer, & Melara, 2012), suggests that iconic memory does depend on attention. Because of the centrality of iconic memory to this debate, we looked again at the role of attention in iconic memory using a standard whole versus partial report task of letters in a 3 × 2 matrix. We manipulated attention to the array by coupling it with a second task that was either easy or hard and by manipulating the probability of which task was to be performed on any given trial. When attention was maximally diverted from the matrix, participants were able to report less than a single item, confirming the prior results and supporting the conclusion that iconic memory entails attention. It is not an instance of attention-free awareness.
    Consciousness and Cognition 05/2015; 33. DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.016 · 2.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a recent paper (Mack et al., 2015) the effect of attentional manipulations on partial report performance was investigated. The results were interpreted in favor of the stance that an attention-free phenomenal iconic store does not exist. Therefore, the authors argue that consciousness requires attention. Here we question their conclusions both on the methodological and conceptual grounds. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Consciousness and Cognition 04/2015; 34:73-74. DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2015.03.014 · 2.31 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014