Brain dynamics underlying the nonlinear threshold for access to consciousness

Antoine Del Cul, Sylvain Baillet, Stanislas Dehaene, Antoine Del Cul, Sylvain Baillet, Stanislas Dehaene

Abstract

When a flashed stimulus is followed by a backward mask, subjects fail to perceive it unless the target-mask interval exceeds a threshold duration of about 50 ms. Models of conscious access postulate that this threshold is associated with the time needed to establish sustained activity in recurrent cortical loops, but the brain areas involved and their timing remain debated. We used high-density recordings of event-related potentials (ERPs) and cortical source reconstruction to assess the time course of human brain activity evoked by masked stimuli and to determine neural events during which brain activity correlates with conscious reports. Target-mask stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was varied in small steps, allowing us to ask which ERP events show the characteristic nonlinear dependence with SOA seen in subjective and objective reports. The results separate distinct stages in mask-target interactions, indicating that a considerable amount of subliminal processing can occur early on in the occipito-temporal pathway (<250 ms) and pointing to a late (>270 ms) and highly distributed fronto-parieto-temporal activation as a correlate of conscious reportability.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Schematic Predictions Concerning the Brain…
Figure 1. Schematic Predictions Concerning the Brain Activation to Subliminal and Supraliminal Masked Stimuli, as Derived from a Global Neuronal Workspace Model of Consciousness
Top, depth of cortical processing: subliminal stimuli (left panel) should evoke a strong activation in extrastriate visual cortex, but their intensity should quickly decrease in higher visual areas; only conscious stimuli (right panel) should trigger a late surge of activation in a global prefronto-parietal network. Bottom, schematic time course of activation as a function of masking strength. Masking is expected to have little effect on early visual activation but to modulate the strength of activation in higher visual areas. Furthermore, there should be a nonlinear effect of masking strength in prefrontal cortex, with a similar late top-down activation peak occurring simultaneously in visual areas [–21].
Figure 2. Experimental Protocol and Behavioral Results…
Figure 2. Experimental Protocol and Behavioral Results Collected during ERP Recording
(A) On each trial, a target numeral (16 ms) was presented at one of four possible location, and followed by a letter mask (250 ms). Gray dots and numerals are shown for spatial reference only, and were not actually presented. Six conditions of target-mask SOA=16, 33, 50, 66, 83, or 100 ms and one mask-only condition (without target) were randomly intermixed across trials. Following each such stimulus, subjects performed two consecutive tasks: (1) forced-choice comparison of the target numeral with the numeral 5 and (2) evaluation of subjective target visibility using a continuous scale labelled “not seen” at left and “maximal visibility” at right. (B and C) Objective and subjective measures of conscious perception. (B) Percentage of correct responses in numerical comparison as a function of SOA. (C) Proportion of trials subjectively rated as “seen” as a function of SOA. In both graphs, the sigmoid curve fitting the data is represented as a continuous line. Error bars represent the standard error. (D) Objective performance at different levels of subjective visibility and SOA; only cells with at least five measures per subject are included. (E) Distribution of subjective visibility ratings yielding the mean data shown in (C).
Figure 3. Mask Subtraction Method
Figure 3. Mask Subtraction Method
The mask subtraction method is illustrated here for ERP activity recorded in parieto-temporal electrodes controlateral to the hemifield of stimulus presentation (averaged across right and left stimulus presentation). To separate activity evoked by target from activity evoked by the mask, the following procedure was used: (A) Alignment of ERPs on mask onset; (C) Subtraction of ERPs evoked by the mask-only condition from each of the others six target + mask conditions; (D) Realignment of these subtracted ERPs on target onset. For comparison, (B) shows the nonsubtracted ERPs aligned on target onset. The subtraction procedure allowed to recover two target-evoked components (P1a and N1) and one later mask-evoked component (P2).
Figure 4. Sequence of ERP Components Evoked…
Figure 4. Sequence of ERP Components Evoked by the Target and Mask
Five ERP components were found to be elicited by the target, and two other components were found to be evoked by the mask. These two last components appeared as positive waveforms since they result from the subtraction of mask-only activity from the mask-evoked N1 and N2 activity for the different target + mask conditions. In the mask-subtracted data, these components appear to increase with SOA, which in reality means that the mask-induced activation (mask-evoked N1 and N2) decreases with SOA. For each component, its peak latency (in milliseconds) is represented as a function of SOA measured relative to target (continuous line) or to mask onset (dashed line). The histograms at right show peak amplitude (in microvolts). Their topography in response to left and right hemifield stimulation is illustrated by voltage maps of the scalp surface, for the target + mask after mask subtraction, SOA=100 ms (first five target-evoked components) and for the mask-only condition (for mask-evoked N1 and N2 components).
Figure 5. Interruption of Target-Evoked Activity by…
Figure 5. Interruption of Target-Evoked Activity by Mask Presentation
Mask-subtracted ERPs from occipito-temporal electrodes, averaged across right and left hemifields of stimulus presentation, are represented aligned respectively on target onset (left panel) and mask onset (right panel). The N2 component shows a common onset for all SOA conditions when ERPs are aligned on target onset, and a common offset when ERPs are aligned on mask onset. Thus, the N2 may reflect a process that starts with target onset and is interrupted by the mask.
Figure 6. Sudden Onset of a Nonlinear…
Figure 6. Sudden Onset of a Nonlinear Variation of Evoked Activity with SOA
The figure shows the mean amplitude of nonsubtracted ERPs aligned on target onset, measured on central (left panel) and fronto-polar electrodes (right panel). The voltage map shows the topography at the peak of the P3 waveform (latency 370 ms), in the SOA = 100 ms condition. In both graphs, ERPs show a nonlinear increase in amplitude with SOA, with a sudden onset around 270–300 ms.
Figure 7. Difference in Activity Evoked by…
Figure 7. Difference in Activity Evoked by Conscious and Nonconscious Masked Stimuli
Left panel, mean amplitude of mask-subtracted ERPs measured on central electrodes is represented respectively for seen and not-seen trials, for SOA = 50 ms, for a subset of nine subjects who had enough measures in both conditions. Identical activity is initially observed in both conditions, but a divergence is seen starting around 270 ms, with seen trials generating an increased positivity. This difference is similar to the nonlinear divergence as a function of SOA observed on the same electrodes (see Figure 5). Note that not-seen trials evoked greater activity than mask-only trials, indicating that late subliminal activity was induced by the unseen targets. The right panel shows the topography of the difference between seen and not-seen trials at SOA = 50 ms.
Figure 8. Sequence of Cortical Activity Evoked…
Figure 8. Sequence of Cortical Activity Evoked by the Masked Targets
Left and right views of the partially inflated hemispheres show the reconstructed cortical sources at the peak of the P3 (370 ms) in the condition of maximal visibility (SOA = 100 ms). Colors indicate the activation of reconstructed cortical sources, expressed in current density units (A.m), thresholded at 50% of the maximum (yellow = 10−−7 A.m). Insets show the profiles of mask-subtracted activity (average of absolute current density) in six bilateral regions of interest (right and left posterior parietal, posterior ventral temporal, and inferior frontal areas), separately for the six conditions of SOA. Two phases of cortical activation can be distinguished. In a first phase, prior to about 300 ms, activation progresses from the occipital pole toward both parietal and ventral temporal sites, and its amplitude increases roughly linearly with target-mask SOA. In a second phase, after 300 ms, there is a sudden onset of high-amplitude activity, with a sigmoidal profile, particularly in ventral prefrontal cortex, accompanied by a concomitant reactivation of all previous posterior sites.

References

    1. Breitmeyer B. Visual masking: Time slices through conscious and unconscious vision. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. 384
    1. Del Cul A, Dehaene S, Leboyer M. Preserved subliminal processing and impaired conscious access in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1313–1323.
    1. Kiefer M. The N400 is modulated by unconsciously perceived masked words: Further evidence for an automatic spreading activation account of N400 priming effects. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2002;13:27–39.
    1. Naccache L, Gaillard R, Adam C, Hasboun D, Clémenceau S, et al. A direct intracranial record of emotions evoked by subliminal words. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:7713–7717.
    1. Dehaene S, Naccache L, Le Clec'H G, Koechlin E, Mueller M, et al. Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature. 1998;395:597–600.
    1. Haynes JD, Rees G. Predicting the orientation of invisible stimuli from activity in human primary visual cortex. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:686–691.
    1. Pins D, Ffytche D. The neural correlates of conscious vision. Cereb Cortex. 2003;13:461–474.
    1. Super H, Spekreijse H, Lamme VA. Two distinct modes of sensory processing observed in monkey primary visual cortex (V1) Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:304–310.
    1. Lamme VA, Zipser K, Spekreijse H. Masking interrupts figure-ground signals in V1. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002;14:1044–1053.
    1. Lamme VA. Towards a true neural stance on consciousness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10:494–501.
    1. Zeki S. The disunity of consciousness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7:214–218.
    1. Tse PU, Martinez-Conde S, Schlegel AA, Macknik SL. Visibility, visual awareness, and visual masking of simple unattended targets are confined to areas in the occipital cortex beyond human V1/V2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:17178–17183.
    1. Tong F. Primary visual cortex and visual awareness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4:219–229.
    1. Allison T, Puce A, Spencer DD, McCarthy G. Electrophysiological studies of human face perception. I: Potentials generated in occipitotemporal cortex by face and non-face stimuli. Cereb Cortex. 1999;9:415–430.
    1. Baars BJ. A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Cambridge University Press; 1989. 416
    1. Dehaene S, Kerszberg M, Changeux JP. A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:14529–14534.
    1. Dehaene S, Naccache L. Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition. 2001;79:1–37.
    1. Dehaene S, Naccache L, Cohen L, Bihan DL, Mangin JF, et al. Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:752–758.
    1. Dehaene S, Sergent C, Changeux JP. A neuronal network model linking subjective reports and objective physiological data during conscious perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:8520–8525.
    1. Dehaene S, Changeux JP. Ongoing spontaneous activity controls access to consciousness: A neuronal model for inattentional blindness. PLoS Biol. 2005;3:e141.
    1. Dehaene S, Changeux JP, Naccache L, Sackur J, Sergent C. Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10:204–211.
    1. Rees G, Kreiman G, Koch C. Neural correlates of consciousness in humans. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:261–270.
    1. Vuilleumier P, Sagiv N, Hazeltine E, Poldrack RA, Swick D, et al. Neural fate of seen and unseen faces in visuospatial neglect: a combined event-related functional MRI and event-related potential study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:3495–3500.
    1. Beck DM, Rees G, Frith CD, Lavie N. Neural correlates of change detection and change blindness. Nature Neuroscience. 2001;4:645–650.
    1. Marois R, Yi DJ, Chun MM. The neural fate of consciously perceived and missed events in the attentional blink. Neuron. 2004;41:465–472.
    1. Lumer ED, Rees G. Covariation of activity in visual and prefrontal cortex associated with subjective visual perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:1669–1673.
    1. Lau HC, Passingham RE. Relative blindsight in normal observers and the neural correlate of visual consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:18763–18768.
    1. Tononi G. An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neurosci. 2004;5:42.
    1. Haynes JD, Driver J, Rees G. Visibility reflects dynamic changes of effective connectivity between V1 and fusiform cortex. Neuron. 2005;46:811–821.
    1. Sergent C, Baillet S, Dehaene S. Timing of the brain events underlying access to consciousness during the attentional blink. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1391–1400.
    1. Sergent C, Dehaene S. Is consciousness a gradual phenomenon? Evidence for an all-or-none bifurcation during the attentional blink. Psychol Sci. 2004;15:720–728.
    1. Naccache L, Dehaene S. The priming method: Imaging unconscious repetition priming reveals an abstract representation of number in the parietal lobes. Cereb Cortex. 2001;11:966–974.
    1. Kunde W, Kiesel A, Hoffmann J. Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition. 2003;88:223–242.
    1. Merikle PM, Reingold EM. Recognition and lexical decision without detection: unconscious perception? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990;16:574–583.
    1. Vaughan HG, Jr., Silverstein L. Metacontrast and evoked potentials: A reappraisal. Science. 1968;160:207–208.
    1. Woodman GF, Luck SJ. Dissociations among attention, perception, and awareness during object-substitution masking. Psychol Sci. 2003;14:605–611.
    1. Kranczioch C, Debener S, Schwarzbach J, Goebel R, Engel AK. Neural correlates of conscious perception in the attentional blink. Neuroimage. 2005;24:704–714.
    1. Vorberg D, Mattler U, Heinecke A, Schmidt T, Schwarzbach J. Different time courses for visual perception and action priming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:6275–6280.
    1. Ferrand L, Grainger J. Effects of orthography are independent of phonology in masked form priming. Q J Exp Psychol [A] 1994;47:365–382.
    1. Bridgeman B. Correlates of metacontrast in single cells of the cat visual system. Vision Res. 1975;15:91–99.
    1. Macknik SL, Livingstone MS. Neuronal correlates of visibility and invisibility in the primate visual system. Nat Neurosci. 1998;1:144–149.
    1. Kovacs G, Vogels R, Orban GA. Cortical correlate of pattern backward masking. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92:5587–5591.
    1. Rolls ET, Tovee MJ, Panzeri S. The neurophysiology of backward visual masking: Information analysis. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999;11:300–311.
    1. Green MF, Glahn D, Engel SA, Nuechterlein KH, Sabb F, et al. Regional brain activity associated with visual backward masking. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005;17:13–23.
    1. Thompson KG, Schall JD. The detection of visual signals by macaque frontal eye field during masking. Nat Neurosci. 1999;2:283–288.
    1. Nieuwenhuis S, Ridderinkhof KR, Blom J, Band GP, Kok A. Error-related brain potentials are differentially related to awareness of response errors: evidence from an antisaccade task. Psychophysiology. 2001;38:752–760.
    1. Brazdil M, Rektor I, Daniel P, Dufek M, Jurak P. Intracerebral event-related potentials to subthreshold target stimuli. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112:650–661.
    1. Brazdil M, Rektor I, Dufek M, Jurak P, Daniel P. Effect of subthreshold target stimuli on event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998;107:64–68.
    1. Keysers C, Perrett DI. Visual masking and RSVP reveal neural competition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6:120–125.
    1. Keysers C, Xiao DK, Foldiak P, Perrett DI. The speed of sight. J Cogn Neurosci. 2001;13:90–101.
    1. Van Aalderen-Smeets SI, Oostenveld R, Schwarzbach J. Investigating neurophysiological correlates of masking with magnetoencephalography. Adv Cogn Psych. 2006;2:21–35.
    1. Clarke JM, Halgren E, Chauvel P. Intracranial ERPs in humans during a lateralized visual oddball task: II. Temporal, parietal, and frontal recordings. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;110:1226–1244.
    1. Weidner R, Shah NJ, Fink GR. The neural basis of perceptual hypothesis generation and testing. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006;18:258–266.
    1. Kouider S, Dehaene S, Jobert A, Le Bihan D. Cerebral bases of subliminal and supraliminal priming during reading. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:2019–2029.
    1. Kleinschmidt A, Buchel C, Hutton C, Friston KJ, Frackowiak RS. The neural structures expressing perceptual hysteresis in visual letter recognition. Neuron. 2002;34:659–666.
    1. de Lafuente V, Romo R. Neural correlate of subjective sensory experience gradually builds up across cortical areas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:14266–14271.
    1. de Lafuente V, Romo R. Neuronal correlates of subjective sensory experience. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1698–1703.
    1. Melloni L, Molina C, Pena M, Torres D, Singer W, et al. Synchronization of neural activity across cortical areas correlates with conscious perception. J Neurosci. 2007;27:2858–2865.
    1. Koivisto M, Revonsuo A, Lehtonen M. Independence of visual awareness from the scope of attention: An electrophysiological study. Cereb Cortex. 2006;16:415–424.
    1. Bar M, Tootell RBH, Schacter DL, Greve DN, Fischl B, et al. Cortical mechanisms specific to explicit visual object recognition. Neuron. 2001;29:529–535.
    1. Grill-Spector K, Kushnir T, Hendler T, Malach R. The dynamics of object-selective activation correlate with recognition performance in humans. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3:837–843.
    1. Block NJ. Fictionalism functionalism and factor analysis. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1974;1974:127–141.
    1. Beck DM, Muggleton N, Walsh V, Lavie N. Right parietal cortex plays a critical role in change blindness. Cereb Cortex. 2006;16:712–717.
    1. Huang MX, Mosher JC, Leahy RM. A sensor-weighted overlapping-sphere head model and exhaustive head model comparison for MEG. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:423–440.
    1. Baillet S, Mosher JC, Leahy RM. Electromagnetic brain mapping. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. 2001;18:14–30.
    1. Di Lollo V, Enns JT, Rensink RA. Competition for conciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000;129:481–507.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi