Similar Effects of Feature-Based Attention on Motion Perception and Pursuit Eye Movements at Different Levels of Awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feature-based attention enhances visual processing and improves perception, even for visual features that we are not aware of. Does feature-based attention also modulate motor behavior in response to visual information that does or does not reach awareness? Here we compare the effect of feature-based attention on motion perception and smooth-pursuit eye movements in response to moving dichoptic plaids--stimuli composed of two orthogonally drifting gratings, presented separately to each eye--in human observers. Monocular adaptation to one grating before the presentation of both gratings renders the adapted grating perceptually weaker than the unadapted grating and decreases the level of awareness. Feature-based attention was directed to either the adapted or the unadapted grating's motion direction or to both (neutral condition). We show that observers were better at detecting a speed change in the attended than the unattended motion direction, indicating that they had successfully attended to one grating. Speed change detection was also better when the change occurred in the unadapted than the adapted grating, indicating that the adapted grating was perceptually weaker. In neutral conditions, perception and pursuit in response to plaid motion were dissociated: While perception followed one grating's motion direction almost exclusively (component motion), the eyes tracked the average of both gratings (pattern motion). In attention conditions, perception and pursuit were shifted toward the attended component. These results suggest that attention affects perception and pursuit similarly even though only the former reflects awareness. The eyes can track an attended feature even if observers do not perceive it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".