Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 110, Issue 35, 2013, Pages 14196-14201

  Lupyan, Gary ^a   Ward, Emily J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

CFS; Penetrability of perception; Top down effects; Vision

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AWARENESS; BEHAVIOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; RESPONSE TIME; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIGNAL DETECTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERBALIZATION; VISION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION;

CFS; PENETRABILITY OF PERCEPTION; TOP-DOWN EFFECTS; VISION;

AWARENESS; CUES; HEARING; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84883374534     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1303312110     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Pylyshyn Z (1999) Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behav Brain Sci 22(3):341-365, discussion 366-423.
2. Shams L, Kamitani Y, Shimojo S (2002) Visual illusion induced by sound. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 14(1):147-152.
3. Watanabe K, Shimojo S (2001) When sound affects vision: Effects of auditory grouping on visual motion perception. Psychol Sci 12(2):109-116.
4. Freeman WJ (2001) How Brains Make Up Their Minds (Columbia Univ Press, New York), 1st Ed.
5. Mesulam MM (1998) From sensation to cognition. Brain 121(Pt 6):1013-1052.
6. McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE (1981) An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. 1. An account of basic findings. Psychol Rev 88(5):375-407.
7. Churchland PS, Ramachandran V, Sejnowski TJ (1994) Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain, eds Koch C, Davis JL (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp 23-60.
8. Cox D, Meyers E, Sinha P (2004) Contextually evoked object-specific responses in human visual cortex. Science 304(5667):115-117.
9. Kveraga K, Ghuman AS, Bar M (2007) Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain. Brain Cogn 65(2):145-168.
10. McClelland JL, Mirman D, Holt LL (2006) Are there interactive processes in speech perception? Trends Cogn Sci 10(8):363-369.
11. Fodor JA (1983) The Modularity of Mind (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
12. Anderson SE, Chiu E, Huette S, Spivey MJ (2011) On the temporal dynamics of languagemediated vision and vision-mediated language. Acta Psychol (Amst) 137(2):181-189.
13. Lupyan G (2012) Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Front Pyschol 3:54.
14. Shams L, Kim R (2010) Crossmodal influences on visual perception. Phys Life Rev 7(3): 269-284.
15. Lupyan G, Thompson-Schill SL, Swingley D (2010) Conceptual penetration of visual processing. Psychol Sci 21(5):682-691.
16. Macpherson F (2012) Cognitive penetration of colour experience: Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philos Phenomenol Res 84(1):24-62.
17. Stokes D (2011) Perceiving and desiring: A new look at the cognitive penetrability of experience. Philos Stud 158(3):479-492.
18. Siegel S (2012) Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Noûs 46(2):201-222.
19. Winawer J, et al. (2007) Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(19):7780-7785.
20. Regier T, Kay P (2009) Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends Cogn Sci 13(10):439-446.
21. Athanasopoulos P, Wiggett A, Dering B, Kuipers JR, Thierry G (2009) The Whorfian mind: Electrophysiological evidence that language shapes perception. Commun Integr Biol 2(4):332-334.
22. Lupyan G (2008) The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition 108(2):566-577.
23. Lupyan G, Spivey MJ (2010) Redundant spoken labels facilitate perception of multiple items. Atten Percept Psychophys 72(8):2236-2253.
24. Lupyan G, Swingley D (2012) Self-directed speech affects visual search performance. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 65(6):1068-1085.
25. Meteyard L, Bahrami B, Vigliocco G (2007) Motion detection and motion verbs: Language affects low-level visual perception. Psychol Sci 18(11):1007-1013.
26. Dils AT, Boroditsky L (2010) Visual motion aftereffect from understanding motion language. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(37):16396-16400.
27. Meteyard L, Zokaei N, Bahrami B, Vigliocco G (2008) Visual motion interferes with lexical decision on motion words. Curr Biol 18(17):R732-R733.
28. Pelekanos V, Moutoussis K (2011) The effect of language on visual contrast sensitivity. Perception 40(12):1402-1412.
29. Landau AN, Aziz-Zadeh L, Ivry RB (2010) The influence of language on perception: Listening to sentences about faces affects the perception of faces. J Neurosci 30(45): 15254-15261.
30. Raftopoulos A (2005) Cognitive Penetrability Of Perception: Attention, Action, Strategies, And Bottom-up Constraints (Nova, Hauppauge, NY).
31. Fodor JA (1988) A reply to Churchland's 'Perceptual plasticity and theoretical neutrality' Philos Sci 55(2):188-198.
32. Raftopoulos A (2011) Late vision: Processes and epistemic status. Front Psychol 2:382.
33. Lupyan G, Spivey MJ (2010) Making the invisible visible: Auditory cues facilitate visual object detection. PLoS ONE 5:e11452.
34. Bar M, et al. (2006) Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(2):449-454.
35. Fahrenfort JJ, Scholte HS, Lamme VAF (2007) Masking disrupts reentrant processing in human visual cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 19(9):1488-1497.
36. Frenck-Mestre C, Grainger J (1998) Masked priming by translation equivalents in proficient bilinguals. Lang Cogn Process 13(6):601-623.
37. Kouider S, Dehaene S (2007) Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: A critical review of visual masking. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 362(1481):857-875.
38. Blake R (2001) A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain Mind 2(1):5-38.
39. Tsuchiya N, Koch C (2005) Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages. Nat Neurosci 8(8):1096-1101.
40. Weiskrantz L (1999) Consciousness Lost and Found: A Neuropsychological Exploration (Oxford Univ Press, New York), 1st Ed.
41. O'Connor DH, Fukui MM, Pinsk MA, Kastner S (2002) Attention modulates responses in the human lateral geniculate nucleus. Nat Neurosci 5(11):1203-1209.
42. Reynolds JH, Heeger DJ (2009) The normalization model of attention. Neuron 61(2): 168-185.
43. Puri AM, Wojciulik E (2008) Expectation both helps and hinders object perception. Vision Res 48(4):589-597.
44. Esterman M, Yantis S (2010) Perceptual expectation evokes category-selective cortical activity. Cereb Cortex 20(5):1245-1253.
45. Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18:193-222.
46. Deco G, Lee TS (2002) A unified model of spatial and object attention based on intercortical biased competition. Neurocomputing 44:775-781.
47. Vecera SP, Farah MJ (1994) Does visual attention select objects or locations? J Exp Psychol Gen 123(2):146-160.
48. Kang MS, Blake R, Woodman GF (2011) Semantic analysis does not occur in the absence of awareness induced by interocular suppression. J Neurosci 31(38):13535-13545.
49. Zimba LD, Blake R (1983) Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 9(5):807-815.
50. Cave CB, Blake R, McNamara TP (1998) Binocular rivalry disrupts visual priming. Psychol Sci 9(4):299-302.
51. Moradi F, Koch C, Shimojo S (2005) Face adaptation depends on seeing the face. Neuron 45(1):169-175.
52. Lin Z, He S (2009) Seeing the invisible: The scope and limits of unconscious processing in binocular rivalry. Prog Neurobiol 87(4):195-211.
53. Kreiman G, Fried I, Koch C (2002) Single-neuron correlates of subjective vision in the human medial temporal lobe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(12):8378-8383.
54. Sheinberg DL, Logothetis NK (1997) The role of temporal cortical areas in perceptual organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94(7):3408-3413.
55. Blake R, Logothetis NK (2002) Visual competition. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(1):13-21.
56. Pasley BN, Mayes LC, Schultz RT (2004) Subcortical discrimination of unperceived objects during binocular rivalry. Neuron 42(1):163-172.
57. Fang F, He S (2005) Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways. Nat Neurosci 8(10):1380-1385.
58. Hsieh PJ, Colas JT, Kanwisher N (2011) Pop-out without awareness: Unseen feature singletons capture attention only when top-down attention is available. Psychol Sci 22(9):1220-1226.
59. Chou WL, Yeh SL (2012) Object-based attention occurs regardless of object awareness. Psychon Bull Rev 19(2):225-231.
60. Martinez-Trujillo JC, Treue S (2004) Feature-based attention increases the selectivity of population responses in primate visual cortex. Curr Biol 14(9):744-751.
61. Schyns PG, Oliva A (1999) Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: When categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations. Cognition 69(3):243-265.
62. Dehaene S, Changeux JP, Naccache L, Sackur J, Sergent C (2006) Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends Cogn Sci 10(5): 204-211.
63. Clark A (2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci 36(3):181-204.
64. Geisler WS, Kersten D (2002) Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nat Neurosci 5(6): 508-510.
65. Howe CQ, Purves D (2002) Range image statistics can explain the anomalous perception of length. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(20):13184-13188.
66. Koivisto M, Railo H, Revonsuo A, Vanni S, Salminen-Vaparanta N (2011) Recurrent processing in V1/V2 contributes to categorization of natural scenes. J Neurosci 31(7): 2488-2492.
67. Lamme VAF, Roelfsema PR (2000) The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends Neurosci 23(11):571-579.
68. Rao RP, Ballard DH (1999) Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nat Neurosci 2(1):79-87.
69. Reynolds JH, Chelazzi L (2004) Attentional modulation of visual processing. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:611-647.
70. Rossion B, Pourtois G (2004) Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception 33(2):217-236.
71. Almeida J, Mahon BZ, Nakayama K, Caramazza A (2008) Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(39):15214-15218.
72. Yang E, Blake R (2012) Deconstructing continuous flash suppression. J Vis 12(3):8.
73. Brady TF, Konkle T, Alvarez GA, Oliva A (2008) Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(38):14325-14329.
74. Morey RD (2008) Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials Quantitative Methods Psychol 4(2):61-64.