CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 363Visual perception and processing mechanismsSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attention without awareness in blindsight

Open access
Kentridge, R. W., Heywood, C. A., Weiskrantz, L.·1999·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rspb.1999.0850PMC PMC1690198
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The act of attending has frequently been equated with visual awareness. We examined this relationship in 'blindsight'--a condition in which the latter is absent or diminished as a result of damage to the primary visual cortex. Spatially selective visual attention is demonstrated when information that stimuli are likely to appear at a specific location enhances the speed or accuracy of detection of stimuli subsequently presented at that location. In a blindsight subject, we showed that attention can confer an advantage in processing stimuli presented at an attended location, without those stimuli entering consciousness. Attention could be directed both by symbolic cues in the subject's spared field of vision or cues presented in his blind field. Cues in his blind field were even effective in directing his attention to a second location remote from that at which the cue was presented. These indirect cues were effective whether or not they themselves elicited non-visual awareness. We concluded that the spatial selection of information by an attentional mechanism and its entry into conscious experience cannot be one and the same process.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.1999.0850

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 363

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kentridge, R. W., Heywood, C. A., & Weiskrantz, L.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Kentridge, R. W.
ORCID
Kentridge, R. W.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
1999-09-07
Volume
266
Issue
1430
Pages
1805-1811
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
DOI
10.1098/rspb.1999.0850
PMC
PMC1690198
OpenAlex
W1979694956
Semantic Scholar
e51853fe8ac2e115145ccc86626b263d2b84df48
Cited by
362
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 20
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
blindsight, visual attention, visual awareness, spatial attention, cueing, blind field, attention and consciousness, visual perception
MeSH terms
Accidents, Traffic, Adult, Attention, Awareness, Cues, Hemianopsia, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Space Perception, Visual Cortex, Contrast Sensitivity

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