Cited by 306Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFace Recognition and Perception

The Neural Fate of Consciously Perceived and Missed Events in the Attentional Blink

Open access
Marois, René, Yi, Do-Joon, Chun, Marvin M·2004·Neuron

Abstract

Cognitive models of attention propose that visual perception is a product of two stages of visual processing: early operations permit rapid initial categorization of the visual world, while later attention-demanding capacity-limited stages are necessary for the conscious report of the stimuli. Here we used the attentional blink paradigm and fMRI to neurally distinguish these two stages of vision. Subjects detected a face target and a scene target presented rapidly among distractors at fixation. Although the second, scene target frequently went undetected by the subjects, it nonetheless activated regions of the medial temporal cortex involved in high-level scene representations, the parahippocampal place area (PPA). This PPA activation was amplified when the stimulus was consciously perceived. By contrast, the frontal cortex was activated only when scenes were successfully reported. These results suggest that medial temporal cortex permits rapid categorization of the visual input, while the frontal cortex is part of a capacity-limited attentional bottleneck to conscious report.

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/s0896-6273(04)00012-1

Cites

71 of 71 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. K. Shapiro, ed. (New York: lates of change detection and change blindness. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 645-650. OU Press), pp. 82-99.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marois, R., Yi, D.-J., & Chun, M. M.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Marois, René
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-02
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
465-472
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098899462
Cited by
306
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 15
FWCI
10.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0094992)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 EY014193)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
attentional blink, conscious perception, visual attention, medial temporal cortex, parahippocampal place area, scene perception, face perception, attentional bottleneck, early visual processing, frontal cortex, visual categorization
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Attention, Blinking, Brain Mapping, Hemodynamics, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mental Processes, Neurons, Photic Stimulation, Time Factors, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception, Area Under Curve

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