CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 241Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Attention induces conservative subjective biases in visual perception

Rahnev, Dobromir, Maniscalco, Brian, Graves, Tashina, Huang, Elliott, de Lange, Floris P, Lau, Hakwan·2011·Nature Neuroscience
DOI 10.1038/nn.2948
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although attention usually enhances perceptual sensitivity, we found that it can also lead to relatively conservative detection biases and lower visibility ratings in discrimination tasks. These results are explained by a model in which attention reduces the trial-by-trial variability of the perceptual signal, and we determined how this model led to the observed behavior. These findings may partially reflect our impression of 'seeing' the whole visual scene despite our limited processing capacity outside of the focus of attention.

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 · 10.1038/nn.2948

Cites

2 of 2 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A prominent proposal is that confidence is based on the distance between the measurement and the decision boundary, without any role for sensory uncertainty.

    “a prominent proposal is that confidence is based on the distance between the measurement and the decision boundary, without any role for sensory uncertainty [10, 11, 39].”

    From Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports (2018) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Computational Modeling Assumptions section describes confidence judgments as comparisons of an internal signal with rating criteria, supporting a criterion-based account. But Supplementary Figure 5 says variability in the internal signal changes how often trials exceed the high-confidence criteria. The paper therefore does not support the unqualified claim that sensory uncertainty has no role. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In detection and coarse discrimination tasks, Lau, Rahnev, and colleagues report that subjects overestimate their confidence in the periphery and for unattended stimuli.

    “In detection and coarse discrimination tasks, Lau, Rahnev, and colleagues report that subjects overestimate their confidence in the periphery and for unattended stimuli.”

    From Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports (2018) · cites this paper as [39]

    In the brief communications section (page unavailable), the paper reports a more liberal detection bias and higher visibility ratings for uncued stimuli when sensitivity was matched or contrast was low. It discusses apparent vividness in peripheral vision as a possible implication, but does not directly report that subjects overestimated confidence in the periphery. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [1]1. Gorea, A., & Sagi, D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 , 12380-12384 (2000).
  2. [2]2. Green, D.M., & Swets J.A. New York: Wiley (1966).
  3. [8]8. Burnham, K.P., & Anderson, D.R. New York, NY: Springer (2002).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rahnev, D., Maniscalco, B., Graves, T., Huang, E., de Lange, F. P., & Lau, H.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Rahnev, Dobromir
  • Lau, Hakwan
ORCID
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-10-23
Volume
14
Issue
12
Pages
1513-1515
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
DOI
10.1038/nn.2948
OpenAlex
W2059268853
Cited by
241
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
attention, subjective confidence, decision confidence, visual perception, detection bias, signal variability, perceptual discrimination, perceptual sensitivity
MeSH terms
Attention, Discrimination, Psychological, Humans, Models, Psychological, Photic Stimulation, Psychophysics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Space Perception, Visual Perception, Bias

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