Cited by 92Visual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

The Attentional Blink Reveals the Probabilistic Nature of Discrete Conscious Perception

Open access
Asplund, Christopher L., Fougnie, Daryl, Zughni, Samir, Martin, Justin W., Marois, René·2014·Psychological Science

Abstract

Attention and awareness are two tightly coupled processes that have been the subject of the same enduring debate: Are they allocated in a discrete or in a graded fashion? Using the attentional blink paradigm and mixture-modeling analysis, we show that awareness arises at central stages of information processing in an all-or-none manner. Manipulating the temporal delay between two targets affected subjects’ likelihood of consciously perceiving the second target, but did not affect the precision of its representation. Furthermore, these results held across stimulus categories and paradigms, and they were dependent on attention having been allocated to the first target. The findings distinguish the fundamental contributions of attention and awareness at central stages of visual cognition: Conscious perception emerges in a quantal manner, with attention serving to modulate the probability that representations reach awareness.

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 · 10.1177/0956797613513810

Cites

38 of 38 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

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Asplund, C. L., Fougnie, D., Zughni, S., Martin, J. W., & Marois, R.
Affiliations
  • Yale-NUS College (SG)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2014-01-16
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
824-831
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2158578181
Cited by
92
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Association for Psychological Science
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH70776, R01MH070776)
  • National Eye Institute (P30EY008126)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
attentional blink, conscious perception, attention, awareness, mixture models, time delay, visual perception
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Awareness, Cognition, Consciousness, Female, Humans, Male, Probability, Psychomotor Performance, Attentional Blink, 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