Does sensory information reach conscious awareness in a discrete, all-or-nothing manner or a gradual, continuous manner? To answer this question, we examined behavioral performance across four different paradigms that manipulate visual awareness: the attentional blink, backward masking, the Sperling iconic memory paradigm, and retro-cuing. We then asked how well we could account for participants’ (N = 112 adults) behavior using a signal detection framework that factors in psychophysical scaling to model participants’ responses along a single continuum. We found that this model easily accounted for the data from each of these diverse paradigms. Moreover, we reanalyzed the data from prior studies that had posited a discrete view of perceptual awareness and found that our continuous signal detection model outperformed the models that had been used to support an all-or-nothing view of consciousness. This set of data is consistent with the idea that conscious awareness occurs along a graded continuum.
AdamK. C. S.VogelE. K.AwhE. (2017). Clear evidence for item limits in visual working memory. Cognitive Psychology, 97, 79–97.
2.
AsplundC. L.FougnieD.ZughniS.MartinJ. W.MaroisR. (2014). The attentional blink reveals the probabilistic nature of discrete conscious perception. Psychological Science, 25(3), 824–831.
3.
BaysP. M. (2014). Noise in neural populations accounts for errors in working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 8502–8511.
4.
BaysP. M.CatalaoR. F. G.HusainM. (2009). The precision of visual working memory is set by allocation of a shared resource. Journal of Vision, 9(10), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.10.7
BradyT. F.KonkleT.GillJ.OlivaA.AlvarezG. A. (2013). Visual long-term memory has the same limit on fidelity as visual working memory. Psychological Science, 24, 981–990.
7.
CarruthersP. (2019). Human and animal minds: The consciousness questions laid to rest. Oxford University Press.
8.
CohenM. A.DennettD. (2011). Consciousness cannot be separated from function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 358–364.
9.
DehaeneS. (2014). Consciousness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. Penguin Books.
10.
DehaeneS.NaccacheL.CohenL.BihanD. L.ManginJ. F.PolineJ. B.RiviereD. (2001). Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 752–758.
11.
DunnJ. C.KalishM. L. (2018). State-trace analysis. Springer Press.
12.
ElliottJ. C.BairdB.GiesbrechtB. (2016). Consciousness isn’t all-or-none: Evidence for partial awareness during the attentional blink. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 79–85.
13.
GolombJ. D.L’HeureuxZ. E.KanwisherN. (2014). Feature-binding errors after eye movements and shifts of attention. Psychological Science, 25, 1067–1078.
14.
KouiderS.de GardelleV.SackurJ.DupouxE. (2010). How rich is consciousness? The partial awareness hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 301–307.
15.
KouiderS.DehaeneS. (2007). Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: A critical review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 857–875.
16.
LammeV. (2003). Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 12–18.
17.
LauH.RosenthalD. (2011). Empirical support for higher-order theories of conscious awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 365–373.
18.
MacMillanN. A.CreelmanD. C. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge University Press.
19.
MichelM. (2019). The mismeasure of consciousness: A problem of coordination for the Perceptual Awareness Scale. Philosophy of Science, 86, 1239–1249.
20.
MoralesJ. (2021). Introspection is signal detection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/715184
21.
NieuwenhuisS.de KleijnR. (2011). Consciousness of targets during the attentional blink: A gradual or all-or-none dimension?Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73, 364–373.
22.
OvergaardM.RoteJ.MouridsenK.RamsøyT. Z. (2006). Is conscious perception gradual or dichotomous? A comparison of report methodologies during a visual task. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 700–708.
23.
PhillipsI. B. (2011). Perception and iconic memory: What Sperling doesn’t show. Mind and Language, 26, 381–411.
24.
PhillipsI. B. (2020). Blindsight is qualitatively degraded conscious vision. Psychological Review, 128, 558–5843.
25.
PratteM. S. (2018). Iconic memories die a sudden death. Psychological Science, 29, 877–887.
26.
RaymondJ. E.ShapiroK. L.ArnellK. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860.
27.
RobertsS.PashlerH. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107, 358–367.
28.
SalahubC. M.EmrichS. M. (2016). Tuning perception: Visual working memory biases the quality of visual awareness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 1854–1859.
29.
SandbergK.TimmermansB.OvergaardM.CleermansA. (2010). Measuring consciousness: Is one measure better than the other?Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 1069–1078.
30.
SchurginM. W.WixtedJ. T.BradyT. F. (2020). Psychophysical scaling reveals a unified theory of visual memory strength. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 1156–1172.
31.
SchwarzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
32.
SergentC.DehaeneS. (2004). Is consciousness a gradual phenomenon? Evidence for an all-or-none bifurcation during the attentional blink. Psychological Science, 15, 720–728.
33.
SergentC.WyartV.Babo-RebeloM.CohenL.NaccacheL.Tallon-BaudryC. (2013). Cueing attention after the stimulus is gone can retrospectively trigger conscious perception. Current Biology, 23, 150–155.
SuchowJ. W.BradyT. F.FougnieD.AlvarezG. A. (2013) Modeling visual working memory with the MemToolbox. Journal of Vision, 13, 9.
36.
SyJ. L.MiaoH.-Y.MaroisR.TongF. (2021). Conscious perception can be both graded and discrete. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 1461–1475.
37.
ThibaultL.van den BergR.CavanaghP.SergentC. (2016). Retrospective attention gates discrete conscious access to past sensory stimuli. PLOS ONE, 11(2), Article e0148504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148504
38.
van den BergR.ShinH.ChouW. C.GeorgeR.MaW. J. (2012). Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 8780–8785.
39.
VulE.HanusD.KanwisherN. (2009). Attention as inference: Selection is probabilistic; responses are all-or-none samples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 546–560.
40.
WilliamsJ. R.BradyT. F.StörmerV. S. (2022). Guidance of attention by working memory is a matter of representational fidelity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48, 1–30.
41.
WilliamsJ. R.RobinsonM. M.BradyT. F. (2023). There is no theory-free measure of “swaps” in visual working memory experiments. Computational Brain & Behavior, 6(2), 159–171.
42.
WixtedJ. T. (2020). The forgotten history of signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(2), 201–233.
43.
ZhangW.LuckS. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature, 453, 233–235.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
