Cited by 18Multisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Probing Electrophysiological Indices of Perceptual Awareness across Unisensory and Multisensory Modalities

Open access
Noel, Jean-Paul, Simon, David, Thelen, Antonia, Maier, Alexander, Blake, Randolph, Wallace, Mark T.·2018·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

The neural underpinnings of perceptual awareness have been extensively studied using unisensory (e.g., visual alone) stimuli. However, perception is generally multisensory, and it is unclear whether the neural architecture uncovered in these studies directly translates to the multisensory domain. Here, we use EEG to examine brain responses associated with the processing of visual, auditory, and audiovisual stimuli presented near threshold levels of detectability, with the aim of deciphering similarities and differences in the neural signals indexing the transition into perceptual awareness across vision, audition, and combined visual–auditory (multisensory) processing. More specifically, we examine (1) the presence of late evoked potentials (∼>300 msec), (2) the across-trial reproducibility, and (3) the evoked complexity associated with perceived versus nonperceived stimuli. Results reveal that, although perceived stimuli are associated with the presence of late evoked potentials across each of the examined sensory modalities, between-trial variability and EEG complexity differed for unisensory versus multisensory conditions. Whereas across-trial variability and complexity differed for perceived versus nonperceived stimuli in the visual and auditory conditions, this was not the case for the multisensory condition. Taken together, these results suggest that there are fundamental differences in the neural correlates of perceptual awareness for unisensory versus multisensory stimuli. Specifically, the work argues that the presence of late evoked potentials, as opposed to neural reproducibility or complexity, most closely tracks perceptual awareness regardless of the nature of the sensory stimulus. In addition, the current findings suggest a greater similarity between the neural correlates of perceptual awareness of unisensory (visual and auditory) stimuli when compared with multisensory stimuli.

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 · 10.1162/jocn_a_01247

Cites

103 of 103 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?

  • Noel et al. (2018) found that sudden late ignition was the only clear signature common to auditory, visual, and audiovisual conditions in human EEG.

    “They found that sudden late ignition was the only clear signature common to all three conditions.”

    From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Noel et al., 2018

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. Jeffreys H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.), Oxford classic texts in the physical science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Lehmann D, 1987. Principles of spatial analysis. In: Gevins AS, Remond A (Eds.), Handbook of electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology.: Methods of Analysis of Brain Electrical and Magnetic Signals, vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 309– 354.
  3. Lempel A & Ziv J (1976). On the complexity of finite sequences, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-22, pp. 75– 81.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noel, J.-P., Simon, D., Thelen, A., Maier, A., Blake, R., & Wallace, M. T.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Noel, Jean-Paul
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2018-06
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
814-828
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2792372618
Cited by
17
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center
  • National Institutes of Health (HD083211)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH112336)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54HD083211)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
perceptual awareness, multisensory perception, visual perception, auditory perception, audiovisual integration, EEG complexity, subthreshold stimuli, neural correlates of perception
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Auditory Perception, Awareness, Brain, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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