No difference between conscious and nonconscious visuomotor control : evidence from perceptual learning in the masked prime task
Schlaghecken, Friederike, Blagrove, Elisabeth and Maylor, Elizabeth A.. (2008) No difference between conscious and nonconscious visuomotor control : evidence from perceptual learning in the masked prime task. Consciousness and Cognition, Vol.17 (No.1). pp. 84-93. ISSN 10538100Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.11.004
Negative compatibility effects (NCEs) in the masked-prime paradigm are usually obtained when primes are masked effectively. With ineffective masks-and primes above the perceptual threshold-positive compatibility effects (PCEs) occur. We investigated whether this pattern reflects a causal relationship between conscious awareness and low-level motor control, or whether it reflects the fact that both are affected in the same way by changes in physical stimulus attributes. In a 5-session perceptual learning task, participants learned to consciously identify masked primes. However, they showed unaltered NCEs that were not different from those produced by participants in a control group without equivalent perceptual learning. A control experiment demonstrated that no NCEs occur when prime identification is made possible by ineffective masking. The results suggest that perceptual awareness and low-level motor control are affected by the same factors, but are fundamentally independent of each other.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Science > Psychology|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Motor ability, Motor ability -- Testing, Visual perception, Perceptual-motor processes , Masked priming, Perceptual learning, Reaction time|
|Journal or Publication Title:||Consciousness and Cognition|
|Page Range:||pp. 84-93|
|Funder:||Economic and Social Research Council (Great Britain) (ESRC)|
|Grant number:||RES 000-22-0988 (ESRC)|
|References:||Aron, A., Schlaghecken, F., Fletcher, P., Bullmore, E., Eimer, M., Barker, R., et al. (2003). Inhibition of subliminally primed responses is mediated by the caudate and thalamus: evidence from fMRI and Huntington’s disease. Brain, 126, 713–723. Cheesman, J., & Merikle, P. M. (1986). Distinguishing conscious from unconscious perceptual processes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 343–367. Dehaene, S., Changeux, J.-P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 204–211. Dosher, B. A., & Lu, Z.-L. (1999). Mechanisms of perceptual learning. Vision Research, 39, 3197–3221. Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2001). Response facilitation and inhibition in manual, vocal, and oculomotor performance: evidence for a modality-unspecific mechanism. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 16–26. Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2002). Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: evidence from masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 514–520. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Himmelbach, M., & Karnath, H.-O. (2005). Dorsal and ventral stream interaction: contributions from optic ataxia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 632–640. Jas´kowski, P., & Przekoracka-Krawczyk, A. (2005). On the role of mask structure in subliminal priming. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 65, 409–417. Karni, A., & Sagi, D. (1991). Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America, 88, 4966–4970. Klapp, S. T. (2005). Two versions of the negative compatibility effect: a reply to Lleras and Enns (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 431–435. Klapp, S. T., & Haas, B. W. (2005). The non-conscious influence of masked stimuli on response selection is limited to concrete stimulus– response associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 193–209. Klapp, S. T., & Hinkley, L. B. (2002). The negative compatibility effect: unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 255–269. Lamme, V. A. F. (2003). Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 12–18. Lleras, A., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 475–493. Maehara, G., & Goryo, K. (2003). Perceptual learning in visual backward pattern masking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 1137–1149. Milner, D. A., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Praamstra, P., & Seiss, E. (2005). The neurophysiology of response competition: motor cortex activation and inhibition following subliminal response priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 483–493. Sagi, D., & Tanne, D. (1994). Perceptual learning: learning to see. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4, 195–199. Schlaghecken, F., Bowman, H., & Eimer, M. (2006). Dissociating activation, inhibition, and disinhibition in low-level motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 618–632. Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2000). A central/peripheral asymmetry in subliminal priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1367–1382. Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2002). Motor activation with and without inhibition: evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 148–162. Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2004). Subliminal stimuli can bias ‘free’ choices between response alternatives. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 463–468. Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2006). Active masks and active inhibition: a comment on Lleras and Enns (2004) and on Verleger, Jas´kowski, Aydemir, van der Lubbe, and Groen (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 484–494. Schlaghecken, F., & Maylor, E. A. (2005). Motor control in old age: evidence of impaired low-level inhibition. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, P158–P161. Schubo¨ , A., Schlaghecken, F., & Meinecke, C. (2001). Learning to ignore the mask in texture segmentation tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 919–931. Seiss, E., & Praamstra, P. (2004). The basal ganglia and inhibitory mechanisms in response selection: evidence from subliminal priming of motor responses in Parkinson’s disease. Brain, 127, 330–339. Shiu, L. P., & Pashler, H. (1992). Improvement in line orientation discrimination is retinally local but dependent on cognitive set. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 582–588. Sumner, P. (2006). Mask-induced priming and the negative compatibility effect. Manuscript submitted for publication. Sumner, P., Tsai, P.-C., Yu, K ., & Nachev, P. (2006). Attentional modulation of sensorimotor processes in the absence of perceptual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 10520–10525. Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale, & R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp. 549–586). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Verleger, R., Jas´kowski, P., Aydemir, A., van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Groen, M. (2004). Qualitative differences between conscious and nonconscious processing? On inverse priming induced by masked arrows. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 494–515.|
Actions (login required)