Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26138079›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Motion-induced blindness continues outside visual awareness and without attention.

Kevin C Dieter, Duje Tadin, Joel Pearson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Attention model of binocular rivalry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  3. Does visual attention drive the dynamics of bistable perception?Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2016
    Review
  4. Binocular rivalry from invisible patterns.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016
    Article
  5. Relearning to See in Cortical Blindness.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kevin C Dieter1] Vanderbilt Vision Research Center and Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN, 37240, USA [2] Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, 14627, USA.
Duje Tadin1] Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, 14627, USA [2] Department of Ophthalmology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Joel PearsonSchool of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia.

Funding

VISUAL SCIENCET32EY007125 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Krystel R Huxlin, Duje Tadin · 1990 to 2026
$7.1M
Training in Vision ResearchT32EY007135 · NEI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GEOFFREY F WOODMAN · 1994 to 2026
$5.8M
NEI NIH HHS T32 EY007125NEI NIH HHS T32 EY007135NEI NIH HHS T32 EY 007135-19NEI NIH HHS T32 EY 7125-22
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual phenomena demonstrating striking perceptual disappearances of salient stimuli have fascinated researchers because of their utility in identifying neural processes that underlie subjective visibility and invisibility. Motion-induced blindness (MIB) is appealing for such purposes because it, like a class of ostensibly related paradigms such as binocular rivalry, features periods of unequivocal subjective disappearances despite constant physical stimulation. It remains unclear, however, exactly how the mechanisms that cause MIB are related to subjectively observed fluctuations in visual awareness. To address this question, we used continuous flash suppression (CFS) to present the MIB stimulus outside visual awareness. Results indicated that MIB occasionally reappeared from suppression with its salient yellow target absent. To quantify this observation, we measured reaction times (RTs) to detect the yellow dot target following visible or perceptually suppressed MIB and indeed found no difference in RTs between these conditions. We also provide evidence that MIB fluctuations can occur without attention. In sum, these experiments indicate that MIB fluctuations are effectively changes in stimulus strength, which under typical conditions result in unmistakable subjective disappearances, but are not inherently fluctuations in stimulus visibility. More broadly, these results challenge the assumed privileged link between bistable stimuli and visual awareness.

Indexed as

Motion PerceptionAttentionAwarenessBlindnessFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction Time

Identifiers

PMID26138079
PMCPMC4490349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.