Cited by 187Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFace Recognition and Perception

An ERP study of change detection, change blindness, and visual awareness

Koivisto, Mika, Revonsuo, Antti·2003·Psychophysiology

Abstract

Electrophysiological correlates of change detection and change blindness were studied in 12 observers. The ERP difference between detected changes and undetected changes was considered an electrophysiological correlate of visual awareness. Two distinct electrophysiological responses correlated with the awareness of change. First, awareness was associated with a negative amplitude shift at posterior sites around 200 ms after the change in the stimulus. The latency of the negative shift varied as a function of the task difficulty and the speed of becoming aware of the change. Second, ERPs to detected changes became more positive as compared with undetected changes around 400 ms after the change in the stimulus, peaking at parietal sites. We suggest that the earlier negativity is associated with a change in the content of visual awareness, whereas the later positivity may reflect more global processes needed in decision making and action planning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1469-8986.00044

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • EEG signals-and thereby the brain's EM field-correlate with perception in change blindness, perceptual masking, sound-induced flash illusions, and classic perceptual switching such as the Rubin's vase/face illusion.

    “EEG signals—and thereby the brain's EM field—also correlate with perception in change blindness (Koivisto and Revonsuo, 2003), perceptual masking (Schubert et al., 2009), sound-induced flash illusions (Kaiser et al., 2019) and classic perceptual switching such as when viewing the Rubin's vase/face illusion (Müller et al., 2000).”

    From Consciousness: Matter or EMF? (2023) · cites this paper as Koivisto and Revonsuo, 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koivisto, M., & Revonsuo, A.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Koivisto, Mika
Venue
Psychophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-04-29
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
423-429
ISSN
  • 0048-5772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8986
OpenAlex
W2044324048
Cited by
187
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 11
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
change detection, change blindness, visual awareness, event-related potentials, visual attention, task difficulty, decision-making, action planning
MeSH terms
Adult, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Visual Perception

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