Reproducibility distinguishes conscious from nonconscious neural representations

Science

Volumn 327, Issue 5961, 2010, Pages 97-99

  Schurger, Aaron ^a   Pereira, Francisco ^a   Treisman, Anne ^a   Cohen, Jonathan D ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEUROLOGY; SENSORY SYSTEM; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO;

ARTICLE; CONSCIOUSNESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NERVE CELL; NERVE POTENTIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNCONSCIOUSNESS; VISUAL STIMULATION;

AWARENESS; BRAIN; CONSCIOUSNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NEURONS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; TEMPORAL LOBE; UNCONSCIOUS (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 74549181616     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1180029     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. S. Dehaene et al., Nature 395, 597 (1998).
2. P. M. Merikle, D. Smilek, J. D. Eastwood, Cognition 79, 115 (2001).
3. S. Kouider, S. Dehaene, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Bio. Sci. 362, 857 (2007).
4. Y. Jiang, S. He, Curr. Biol. 16, 2023 (2006).
5. G. Rees et al., Brain 123, 1624 (2000).
6. P. Vuilleumier et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 3495 (2001).
7. K. Moutoussis, S. Zeki, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 9527 (2002).
8. L. Pessoa, S. Kastner, L. G. Ungerleider, J. Neurosci. 23, 3990 (2003).
9. B. Bahrami, N. Lavie, G. Rees, Curr. Biol. 17, 509 (2007).
10. V. Wyart, C. Tallon-Baudry, J. Neurosci. 28, 2667 (2008).
11. A. Schurger, A. Cowey, J. D. Cohen, A. Treisman, C. Tallon-Baudry, Neuropsychologia 46, 2189 (2008).
12. M. Kinsbourne, in Scientific Approaches to Consciousness, J. D. Cohen, J. W. Schooler, Eds. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1997), pp. 335-355.
13. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
14. Post-decision wagering has been proposed as an independent measure of awareness under the assumption that if the subject is aware of the relevant sensory information, then there will be a correspondence between high wagers and correct responses. If no such correspondence is found, then under this assumption we deduce that the subject was not aware of the relevant sensory information (in this case, information sufficient to discern the category of the stimulus) (15).
15. N. Persaud, P. McLeod, A. Cowey, Nat. Neurosci. 10, 257 (2007).
16. A. Schurger, S. Sher, Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 209, author reply 210 (2008).
17. J. D. Haynes, Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 194 (2009).
18. F. Pereira, T. Mitchell, M. Botvinick, Neuroimage 45 (suppl.), S199 (2009).
19. D. L. Sheinberg, N. K. Logothetis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 3408 (1997).
20. P. Sterzer, J. D. Haynes, G. Rees, J. Vis. 8, 10 (2008).
21. While voxel selection was based on coefficents derived statistically from each functional run (13), the activation patterns among these voxels were taken trial by trial from the minimally processed fMRI signal data [at t0 + 2TR, where t0 is time of stimulus onset and 1 TR (time of repetition) = 2 s]. This was done in a leave-one-run-out fashion: The selection was chosen on the basis of data from n - 1 runs, and then the activity vectors from the left-out run (2 visible/invisible × face/house per run) were projected into that space (13).
22. The visible selection comprises the voxels that were maximally informative as to the category of visible stimuli. Likewise, the invisible selection comprises the voxels that were maximally informative as to the category of invisible stimuli.
23. Because the visible selection and the invisible selection occupy separate and largely non-overlapping regions of cortex, comparisons between their functional properties are confounded with differences between the hemodynamic and magnetic-field properties of the regions they inhabit.
24. To produce spatial maps of reliably informative voxels, each voxel was coded with either a 1, if selected on a majority of runs, or a 0 otherwise (Fig. 3, A and B). In order to uncover regional tendencies in the average across subjects, maps for each subject were blurred by ∼10 mm and then discretized again (ceiling). The probability distribution of the average map under the null hypothesis was estimated by using a permutation test (number of voxels held constant for each subject per selection, but locations randomized) and used to set a statistical threshold.
25. M. Bar et al., Neuron 29, 529 (2001).
26. ). Sackur, S. Dehaene, Cognition 111, 187 (2009).
27. D. Balduzzi, G. Tononi, O. Sporns, PLOS Comput Biol. 4, e1000091 (2008).
28. A. Schurger, J. Neurosci. Methods 177, 199 (2009).
29. A. S. was supported by a grant from the Mind Science Foundation and by a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH075342). Special thanks to S. Sher for helpful discussions, S. Dehaene and two anonymous reviewers for comments, M. Kim for help with behavioral testing, and L. Nystrom for advice and assistance with data analysis.