Seeing without Knowing: Neural Signatures of Perceptual Inference in the Absence of Report
Abstract
Every day, we experience a rich and complex visual world. Our brain constantly translates meaningless fragmented input into coherent objects and scenes. However, our attentional capabilities are limited, and we can only report the few items that we happen to attend to. So what happens to items that are not cognitively accessed? Do these remain fragmentary and meaningless? Or are they processed up to a level where perceptual inferences take place about image composition? To investigate this, we recorded brain activity using fMRI while participants viewed images containing a Kanizsa figure, an illusion in which an object is perceived by means of perceptual inference. Participants were presented with the Kanizsa figure and three matched nonillusory control figures while they were engaged in an attentionally demanding distractor task. After the task, one group of participants was unable to identify the Kanizsa figure in a forced-choice decision task; hence, they were "inattentionally blind." A second group had no trouble identifying the Kanizsa figure. Interestingly, the neural signature that was unique to the processing of the Kanizsa figure was present in both groups. Moreover, within-subject multivoxel pattern analysis showed that the neural signature of unreported Kanizsa figures could be used to classify reported Kanizsa figures and that this cross-report classification worked better for the Kanizsa condition than for the control conditions. Together, these results suggest t…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The existence of unreportable phenomenality is well established in neuroscience today.
“the existence of unreportable phenomenality is well established in neuroscience today (Tsuchiya et al. 2015, Vandenbroucke et al. 2014).”
From On the Plausibility of Idealism: Refuting Criticisms (2017) · cites this paper as Vandenbroucke et al. 2014
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 58 · Cited by 65
- Authors
- Vandenbroucke, A. R. E., Fahrenfort, J. J., Sligte, I. G., & Lamme, V. A. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2014-05-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 955-969
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2166009570
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (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 › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- perceptual inference, Kanizsa figures, inattentional blindness, visual attention, multi-voxel pattern analysis, visual object recognition, illusory perception
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Brain, Female, Humans, Illusions, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, 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