Regulating the Access to Awareness: Brain Activity Related to Probe-related and Spontaneous Reversals in Binocular Rivalry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) has implicated an assortment of brain regions, ERP components, and network properties associated with visual awareness. Recently, the P3b ERP component has emerged as a leading NCC candidate. However, typical P3b paradigms depend on the detection of some stimulus change, making it difficult to separate brain processes elicited by the stimulus itself from those associated with updates or changes in visual awareness. Here we used binocular rivalry to ask whether the P3b is associated with changes in awareness even in the absence of changes in the object of awareness. We recorded ERPs during a probe-mediated binocular rivalry paradigm in which brief probes were presented over the image in either the suppressed or dominant eye to determine whether the elicited P3b activity is probe or reversal related. We found that the timing of P3b (but not its amplitude) was closely related to the timing of the report of a perceptual change rather than to the onset of the probe. This is consistent with the proposal that P3b indexes updates in conscious awareness, rather than being related to stimulus processing per se. Conversely, the probe-related P1 amplitude (but not its latency) was associated with reversal latency, suggesting that the degree to which the probe is processed increases the likelihood of a fast perceptual reversal. Finally, the response-locked P3b amplitude (but not its latency) was associated with the duration of an intermediate stage between reversals in which parts of both percepts coexist (piecemeal period). Together, the data suggest that the P3b reflects an update in consciousness and that the intensity of that process (as indexed by P3b amplitude) predicts how immediate that update is.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".