TMS of V1 eliminates unconscious processing of chromatic stimuli

Some of the neurological patients with primary visual cortex (V1) lesions can guide their behavior based on stimuli presented to their blind visual field. One example of this phenomenon is the ability to discriminate colors in the absence of awareness. These so-called patients with blindsight must have a neural pathway that bypasses the V1, explaining their ability to unconsciously process stimuli. To test if similar pathways function in neurologically healthy individuals or if unconscious processing depends on the V1, we disturbed the visibility of a chromatic stimulus with metacontrast masking (Experiment 1) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the V1 (Experiment 2). We measured unconscious processing using the redundant target effect (RTE), which is the speeding up of reaction times in response to dual stimuli compared with one stimulus, when the task is to respond to any number of stimuli. An unconscious chromatic RTE was found when the visibility of the redundant chromatic stimulus was suppressed with a visual mask. When TMS was applied to the V1 to disturb the perception of the redundant chromatic stimulus, the RTE was eliminated. Based on our results and converging evidence from previous studies, we conclude that the unconscious processing of chromatic information depends on the V1 in neurologically healthy participants.

Effects of Exogenous and Endogenous Attention on Metacontrast Masking

To efficiently use its finite resources, the visual system selects for further processing only a subset of the rich sensory information. Visual masking and spatial attention control the information transfer from visual sensory-memory to visual short-term memory. There is still a debate whether these two processes operate independently or interact, with empirical evidence supporting both arguments. However, recent studies pointed out that earlier studies showing significant interactions between common-onset masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. Our review of previous studies reporting metacontrast-attention interactions revealed similar artifacts. Therefore, we investigated metacontrast-attention interactions by using an experimental paradigm, in which ceiling/floor effects were avoided. We also examined whether metacontrast masking is differently influenced by endogenous and exogenous attention. We analyzed mean absolute-magnitude of response-errors and their statistical distribution. When targets are masked, our results support the hypothesis that manipulations of the levels of metacontrast and of endogenous/exogenous attention have largely independent effects. Moreover, statistical modeling of the distribution of response-errors suggests weak interactions modulating the probability of “guessing” behavior for some observers in both types of attention. Nevertheless, our data suggest that any joint effect of attention and metacontrast can be adequately explained by their independent and additive contributions.

Effects of Exogenous and Endogenous Attention on Metacontrast Masking

To efficiently use its finite resources, the visual system selects for further processing only a subset of the rich sensory information. Visual masking and spatial attention control the information transfer from visual sensory-memory to visual short-term memory. There is still a debate whether these two processes operate independently or interact, with empirical evidence supporting both arguments. However, recent studies pointed out that earlier studies showing significant interactions between common-onset masking and attention suffered from ceiling and/or floor effects. Our review of previous studies reporting metacontrast-attention interactions revealed similar artifacts. Therefore, we investigated metacontrast-attention interactions by using an experimental paradigm in which ceiling/floor effects were avoided. We also examined whether metacontrast masking is differently influenced by endogenous and exogenous attention. We analyzed mean absolute-magnitude of response-errors and their statistical distribution. Our results support the hypothesis that metacontrast and endogenous/exogenous attention are largely independent with negligible likelihood for interactions. Moreover, statistical modeling of the distribution of response-errors suggests weak interactions modulating the probability of “guessing” behavior for some observers in both types of attention. Nevertheless, our data suggest that any joint effect of attention and metacontrast can be adequately explained by their independent and additive contributions.