The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Isolating neural correlates of conscious perception from neural correlates of reporting one's perception
Open accessAbstract
To isolate neural correlates of conscious perception (NCCs), a standard approach has been to contrast neural activity elicited by identical stimuli of which subjects are aware vs. unaware. Because conscious experience is private, determining whether a stimulus was consciously perceived requires subjective report: e.g., button-presses indicating detection, visibility ratings, verbal reports, etc. This reporting requirement introduces a methodological confound when attempting to isolate NCCs: The neural processes responsible for accessing and reporting one's percept are difficult to distinguish from those underlying the conscious percept itself. Here, we review recent attempts to circumvent this issue via a modified inattentional blindness paradigm (Pitts et al., 2012) and present new data from a backward masking experiment in which task-relevance and visual awareness were manipulated in a 2 × 2 crossed design. In agreement with our previous inattentional blindness results, stimuli that were consciously perceived yet not immediately accessed for report (aware, task-irrelevant condition) elicited a mid-latency posterior ERP negativity (~200-240 ms), while stimuli that were accessed for report (aware, task-relevant condition) elicited additional components including a robust P3b (~380-480 ms) subsequent to the mid-latency negativity. Overall, these results suggest that some of the NCCs identified in previous studies may be more closely linked with accessing and maintaining perceptual information for reporting purposes than with encoding the conscious percept itself. An open question is whether the remaining NCC candidate (the ERP negativity at 200-240 ms) reflects visual awareness or object-based attention.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1988) · Cited by 3,656
Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing
Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J.-P. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 · Cited by 2,573
Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework
Dehaene, S. (2001) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00123-2 · Cited by 2,498 · cited 1×
“Pre-conscious processing immediately precedes (both temporally and functionally) conscious processing and is capable of establishing elaborate perceptual representations that may become conscious (Dehaene and Naccache, 2001; Dehaene et al., 2006).”
BackgroundConscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy
Dehaene, S., Changeux, J.-P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007 · Cited by 2,067
(1990) · CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1,661
Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3707.001.0001 · Cited by 1,593
Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention
Hillyard, S. A., & Anllo-Vento, L. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.3.781 · Cited by 1,525
Self-citationCrick, F., & Koch, C. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn0203-119 · Cited by 1,492
Mass univariate analysis of event‐related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review
Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x · Cited by 1,169
Towards a true neural stance on consciousness
Lamme, V. A. F. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.001 · Cited by 1,149 · cited 2×
“…conscious perception but differs from certain theoretical frameworks that consider some types of perceptual processing as “phenomenally conscious” even if the subject is unable to report anything about these percepts when specifically instructed to do so (Lamme, 2006; Vandenbroucke et al., 2014).”
Background
Cited by
Neural correlates of consciousness: progress and problems
Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M., & Tononi, G. (2016) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.22 · Cited by 1,600
Boly, M., Massimini, M., Tsuchiya, N., Postle, B. R., Koch, C., & Tononi, G. (2017) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3218-16.2017 · Cited by 557
The Border Between Seeing and Thinking
Block, N. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197622223.001.0001 · Cited by 367
Northoff, G., & Huang, Z. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.013 · Cited by 229
Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Brief Maintenance of Seen and Unseen Sensory Information
King, J.-R., Pescetelli, N., & Dehaene, S. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.051 · Cited by 206
Metadata
- Authors
- Pitts, M. A., Metzler, S., & Hillyard, S. A.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2014-10-08
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 1078-1078
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2152437716
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 73
- FWCI
- 6.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Isolating neural correlates of conscious perception from neural correlates of reporting one's perception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01078
- The paper
- Pitts, M. A., Metzler, S., & Hillyard, S. A. (2014). Isolating neural correlates of conscious perception from neural correlates of reporting one's perception. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01078
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.