Cited by 29Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

The experiential blink: Mapping the cost of working memory encoding onto conscious perception in the attentional blink

Open access
Pincham, Hannah L., Bowman, H., Szucs, D.·2016·Cortex

Abstract

The attentional blink (AB) represents a cognitive deficit in reporting the second of two targets (T2), when that second target appears 200-600 msec after the first (T1). However, it is unclear how this paradigm impacts the subjective visibility (that is, the conscious perception) of T2, and whether the temporal profile of T2 report accuracy matches the temporal profile of subjective visibility. In order to compare report accuracy and subjective visibility, we asked participants to identify T1 and T2, and to rate the subjective visibility of T2 across two experiments. Event-related potentials were also measured. The results revealed different profiles for the report of T2 versus the subjective visibility of T2, particularly when T1 and T2 appeared within 200 msec of one another. Specifically, T2 report accuracy was high but T2 visibility was low when the two targets appeared in close temporal succession, suggesting what we call the Experiential Blink is different from the classic AB. Electrophysiologically, at lag-1, the P3 component was modulated more by subjective visibility than by report accuracy. Collectively, the data indicate that the deficit in accurately reporting T2 is not the same as the deficit in subjectively experiencing T2. This suggests that traditional understandings of the AB may require adjustment and that, consistent with other findings, working memory (WM) encoding and conscious perception may not be synonymous.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.007

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pincham, H. L., Bowman, H., & Szucs, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Bowman, H.
Venue
Cortex
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
81
Pages
35-49
ISSN
0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2339066312
Cited by
29
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
Gates Cambridge Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
attentional blink, conscious perception, subjective visibility, working memory encoding, reporting accuracy, P300, event-related potentials, visual attention
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Blinking, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Attentional Blink, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review