Metacognition in putative magno- and parvocellular vision.

IF 4.3 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL
Neuroscience of Consciousness Pub Date : 2025-09-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/nc/niaf031
April Pilipenko, Jessica De La Torre, Vrishab Nukala, Jason Samaha
{"title":"Metacognition in putative magno- and parvocellular vision.","authors":"April Pilipenko, Jessica De La Torre, Vrishab Nukala, Jason Samaha","doi":"10.1093/nc/niaf031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A major distinction in early visual processing is the magnocellular (MC) and parvocellular (PC) pathways. Prior work has theorized that the PC pathway more strongly contributes to conscious object recognition <i>via</i> projections to the ventral ``what'' visual pathway, whereas the MC pathway underlies non-conscious, action-oriented motion and localization processing <i>via</i> the dorsal stream ``where/how'' pathway. This invites the question: are we equally aware of activity in both pathways? And if not, do task demands interact with which pathway is more accessible to awareness? We investigated this question in a set of two studies measuring participants' metacognition for stimuli biased toward MC or PC processing. The \"Steady/Pulsed Paradigm\" has two conditions that present brief stimuli alongside temporally distinct luminance pedestals, thought to bias stimulus processing to either pathway. Experiment 1 was a spatial localization task thought to rely on information relayed from the MC pathway. Using both a model-based and model-free approach to quantify participants' metacognitive sensitivity to their own task performance, we found greater metacognitive efficiency in the steady (MC-biased) condition compared to the pulsed (PC-biased) condition. Experiment 2 was a fine-grained orientation-discrimination task more reliant on PC pathway information. Our results show an abolishment of the MC pathway advantage seen in Experiment 1 and suggest that the advantage in metacognitive efficiency for MC processing may hold for stimulus localization tasks only. More generally, our results highlight the need to consider the possibility of differential access to low-level stimulus properties in studies of visual metacognition.</p>","PeriodicalId":52242,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience of Consciousness","volume":"2025 1","pages":"niaf031"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12451100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience of Consciousness","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niaf031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A major distinction in early visual processing is the magnocellular (MC) and parvocellular (PC) pathways. Prior work has theorized that the PC pathway more strongly contributes to conscious object recognition via projections to the ventral ``what'' visual pathway, whereas the MC pathway underlies non-conscious, action-oriented motion and localization processing via the dorsal stream ``where/how'' pathway. This invites the question: are we equally aware of activity in both pathways? And if not, do task demands interact with which pathway is more accessible to awareness? We investigated this question in a set of two studies measuring participants' metacognition for stimuli biased toward MC or PC processing. The "Steady/Pulsed Paradigm" has two conditions that present brief stimuli alongside temporally distinct luminance pedestals, thought to bias stimulus processing to either pathway. Experiment 1 was a spatial localization task thought to rely on information relayed from the MC pathway. Using both a model-based and model-free approach to quantify participants' metacognitive sensitivity to their own task performance, we found greater metacognitive efficiency in the steady (MC-biased) condition compared to the pulsed (PC-biased) condition. Experiment 2 was a fine-grained orientation-discrimination task more reliant on PC pathway information. Our results show an abolishment of the MC pathway advantage seen in Experiment 1 and suggest that the advantage in metacognitive efficiency for MC processing may hold for stimulus localization tasks only. More generally, our results highlight the need to consider the possibility of differential access to low-level stimulus properties in studies of visual metacognition.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

假设的脑细胞视觉和旁细胞视觉中的元认知。
早期视觉处理的一个主要区别是巨细胞(MC)和细细胞(PC)途径。先前的研究理论认为,PC通路通过投射到腹侧“什么”视觉通路,对有意识的物体识别有更大的贡献,而MC通路通过背侧流“在哪里/如何”通路,对无意识的、动作导向的运动和定位处理有更大的贡献。这就引出了一个问题:我们是否同样意识到这两种途径的活动?如果没有,任务需求是否与哪条途径更容易被意识到相互作用?我们在一组两项研究中调查了这个问题,测量了参与者对偏向于MC或PC加工的刺激的元认知。“稳定/脉冲范式”有两种条件,即呈现短暂的刺激和时间上不同的亮度基座,被认为偏向刺激处理的任何一种途径。实验1是一个空间定位任务,被认为依赖于MC通路传递的信息。使用基于模型和无模型的方法来量化参与者对自己任务表现的元认知敏感性,我们发现与脉冲(pc偏差)条件相比,稳定(mc偏差)条件下的元认知效率更高。实验2是一个更依赖于PC通路信息的细粒度定向辨别任务。我们的研究结果表明,实验1中MC通路优势的消失,并表明MC加工的元认知效率优势可能仅在刺激定位任务中存在。更一般地说,我们的研究结果强调了在视觉元认知研究中考虑低水平刺激特性差异获取的可能性的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroscience of Consciousness
Neuroscience of Consciousness Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
16
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信