Change blindness and time to consciousness Professor: Liu Student: Ruby

Purpose Purpose: –Using the change blindness to find when the brain detects the mismatch in relation to that the observer reports it.

Reference YearAurthorsResult 1967Libet et al. The minimum time-to-consciousness is 100 ms. When the stimulus is small, it takes more time. 1980Treisman & Gelade The time we require to detect a target may increase when : 1.The target is not an single feature. 2.It is hidden between other sufficiently similar objects in a spatial area. 1992Folk et al. It the focused attention was top-down, change detection should depend on the voluntary systematic of the attention focus.

Reference YearAuthorsResult Yantis & Jonides Wolfe & Bennett A bottom-up mistake detection process, it could influence the visual search Fernandez-Duque & Thornton When the subjects were required to forced-choice performance to exceed chance that presentation was limited to one cycle of stimuli to prevent controlled visual search Ungerleider & Haxby To learn the changes in item identify and position even though different neuronal systems are involved in object recognition and localization.

Method Subjects: –14 people. (6 male and 14 female) Age: –From 18 to 42 years old. Identity changes (A-AI) affected the character of the item Position changes (A-AP) the item was displaced by 0.4° in horizontal or vertical direction.

Method Viewing distance:150 cm. Symbols size of Each experimental condition (A- A, A-AI, A-AP) has 60 trials. Each trial started with 2±3 cycles of the original image. The main task was to press a response button as soon as they noticed a change. The next trial started 3 s after the identification.

Method On each trial were presented in alternation for a maximum of five cycles. Each presentation lasted 1500 ms. A blank grey screen appearing for 200 ms. Resulting in 3400 ms per cycle. EEG recording was recorded by the onset of the blank grey screen that is 200 ms before image onset.

Method Control experiment: –8 people (4 male and 4 female) –60 trials, 20 per condition (A-A, A-AI, A-AP) –The observers were asked to press the left of two buttons on the response box as soon as they felt or sensed the presence of a change. –The duration and frequency of these responses was analyzed separately for the three conditions.

Method Equipment –PC monitor (Eizo T560, refresh rate 70 Hz) –NESU (New Experimental SetUp, Max Planck Institute Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 1999) was used for image sequencing and recording of the subject's response. –For each subject ERP were averaged separately for experimental condition, temporal frame position and electrode position. –Analysis of variance was used to test for differences in the serials temporal epochs, and contained the factors `Type of Change' (A-A vs. A-AI, A-A vs. A-AP, and A-AI vs. A-AP) and `Electrode Site'.

Results - Behavior The subjects need 4.10 stimulus presentations to detect the mismatch. The position changes of the first changed image was significantly shorter than identity changes. (mean, 4887 ms vs ms, t11 = 2.534, P = 0.028). Missing a mismatch during the 5 cycles was higher for identity changes (mean/identity = 16% vs. mean/position = 11% misses, t11 = 2.487, P = 0.030).

Results - Behavior Our behavioral control experiment, aimed at learning whether some feeling preceded the detection response. The most frequency of sensing in the experimental conditions A-AI and A-AP was 29.4%. At T-1 and T-2, the button was kept pressed to indicate sensing was not significantly different.

Results – Electrophysiology T, frame of detection. T-1, one image before detection. T-2, two images before detection.

Results – Electrophysiology The difference from the control condition seen in the mean signal ms was the most significant: –Main effect/identity change, P < between 200 and 800 ms. –Main effect/position change, P < between 200 and 700 ms. Position changes evoked a more wide effect which was most pronounced at parietal sites (main effect/position change, P < between 500 and 700 ms).

Results – Electrophysiology The position changes increased significantly from 500 to 700 ms (interaction/position change 3 electrode site, P = 0.004; Pz and Oz, P < 0.035).

Results – Electrophysiology The amplitude of the sustained positively was significantly in the final five presentations: –A-A, main effect/temporal position P < between 300 and 600 ms. For the experimental conditions (A-AI & A-AP) the negative was found at Centro parietal leads with a slightly later onset: –(interaction, temporal position 3 electrode site P < between 400 and 700 ms).

Discussion After stimulus onset characterizes the epoch during which the changed item is detected: –A successful visual search in a change blindness example is concluded with a P3 response. –The positive complex indicated the target's identification.

Discussion A late positively is seen one or two images before detection is reported: –The authors obtained transient positive waves at posterior leads. –Subjects build up confidence, and very sure such changes were found to be expressed in the amplitude of the P3. –The memory traces which do not need be consciously available interact with the deploy of focal attention and eye movements. –The change considerably earlier than the observer.

Discussion ERPs did not differ between trials in which the change was missed and control trials: –The data does not substantiate earlier psychophysical findings indicating implicit change detection in a forced-choice. –The increasing to the target might be settled by the mismatch detection process focal attention to the target position.

Discussion The changes in position and identity are different affected when the slow ERP positively we assume to reflect mismatch detection: –Position changes are dirtied earlier, and were more frequently accompanied by a `sensing' of a change. – A restricted number of objects (n < 5) and a prolonged presentation time (2 s) memory for spatial remains perfect in contrast to memory for identity.

Discussion Position changes are likely to be transited by the dorsal visual stream mainly involved in visual- motor control. The ERP positively is unlikely to be a real correlate of the ventral or dorsal processing stream.

Conclusion The neuronal representation of the image is not easily wiped out by the screen flicker. Even though ERP effects are not automatically caused by a local change in the display, the bottom-up process is easy detection.