Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T16:07:44.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining the gradient: Requirements for theories of visual awareness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2022

Thomas Schmidt Open the ORCID record for Thomas Schmidt [Opens in a new window]  and
Melanie Biafora
Thomas Schmidt
Affiliation:
Experimental Psychology Unit, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany. Thomas.Schmidt@sowi.uni-kl.de Melanie.Biafora@sowi.uni-kl.de https://www.sowi.uni-kl.de/psychologie
Melanie Biafora
Affiliation:
Experimental Psychology Unit, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany. Thomas.Schmidt@sowi.uni-kl.de Melanie.Biafora@sowi.uni-kl.de https://www.sowi.uni-kl.de/psychologie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose that any theory of visual awareness must explain the gradient of different awareness measures over experimental conditions, especially when those measures form double dissociations among each other. Theories meeting this requirement must be specific to the measured facets of awareness, such as motion, contrast, or color. Integrated information theory (IIT) lacks such specificity because it is an underconstrained theory with unspecific predictions.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e59
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albrecht, T., Klapötke, S., & Mattler, U. (2010). Individual differences in metacontrast masking are enhanced by perceptual learning. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(2), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albrecht, T., & Mattler, U. (2012). Individual differences in metacontrast masking regarding sensitivity and response bias. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1222–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.04.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albrecht, T., & Mattler, U. (2016). Individually different weighting of multiple processes underlies effects of metacontrast masking. Consciousness and Cognition, 42, 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.03.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biafora, M., & Schmidt, T. (2020). Induced dissociations: Opposite time-courses of priming and masking induced by custom-made mask-contrast functions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 1333–1354. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01822-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breitmeyer, B. G., & Öğmen, H. (2006). Visual masking. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198530671.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doerig, A., Schurger, A., & Herzog, M. H. (2020). Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness. Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(2), 41–62. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2020.1772214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irvine, E. (2017). Explaining what? Topoi, 36, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9273-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1968). Method, findings, and theory in studies of visual masking. Psychological Bulletin, 70(6, Pt.1), 404–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026731CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koster, N., Mattler, U., & Albrecht, T. (2020). Visual experience forms a multidimensional pattern that is not reducible to a single measure: Evidence from metacontrast masking. Journal of Vision, 20(3), 2, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1167/jovi.20.3.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oizumi, M., Albantakis, L., & Tononi, G. (2014). From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: Integrated information theory 3.0. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(5), e1003588. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F., Haberkamp, A., & Schmidt, T. (2011). Dos and don'ts in response priming research. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 7, 120–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, T., & Vorberg, D. (2006). Criteria for unconscious cognition: Three types of dissociation. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(3), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193692CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tononi, G., & Edelman, G. M. (1998). Consciousness and complexity. Science (New York, N.Y.), 282(5395), 1846–1851. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5395.1846CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed