Consciousness Does Not Reside Here

Image: John Rensten/Getty Images

What is the relation between selective attention and consciousness? When you strain to listen to the distant baying of coyotes over the sound of a campsite conversation, you do so by attending to the sound and becoming conscious of their howls. When you attend to your sparring opponent out of the corner of your eye, you become hyperaware of his smallest gestures. Because of the seemingly intimate relation between attention and consciousness, most scholars conflate the two processes.

Indeed, when I came out of the closet to give public talks on the mind-body problem in the early 1990s (at that time, it wouldn?t do for a young professor in biology or engineering who had not even yet attained the holy state of tenure to talk about consciousness: it was considered too fringy), some of my colleagues insisted that I replace the incendiary ?consciousness? with the more neutral ?attention? because the two concepts could not be distinguished and were probably the same thing anyway. Two decades later a number of experiments prove that the two are not the same.

Stage magicians are superb at manipulating the audience?s attention. By misdirecting your gaze using their hands or a beautiful, bikini-clad assistant, you look but don?t see, inverting Yogi Berra?s famous witticism, ?You can observe a lot just by watching.? Scientists can do the same, sans the sexy woman. I described a psychophysical technique called continuous flash suppression in an earlier column [see ?Rendering the Visible Invisible,? October/November 2008], in which a faint image in one eye?say, an angry face in the left eye?becomes invisible by flashing a series of colorful overlaid rectangles into the other eye. As long as you keep both eyes open, you see only the flashed pictures. Attention is drawn to the rapidly changing images, effectively camouflaging the angry face. As soon as you wink with the right eye, however, you see the face. This technique has been used to great effect both to hide things from consciousness?such as a naked man or woman?and to demonstrate that the brain will still attend to them.

A Japanese-German collaboration has moved such an experiment into the confines of a magnetic scanner to record the brain?s response to unseen stimuli. Rather than using erotic pictures, they projected a low-contrast grating that was drifting horizontally into one eye. It was surrounded by a scintillating ring in the same or in the opposite eye. In the latter case, the central stimulus became perceptually invisible. It disappeared. This experiment used what is known in the lingo as a 2 ? 2 design. The scientists manipulated the visibility of the moving grating (two conditions); they also manipulated whether or not subjects attended to the grating (two conditions). They achieved the latter two conditions by asking them to monitor a series of single letters that appeared on the ring and to report the presence of a particular letter. On the other half of the trials, subjects were told to ignore these letters. In total, four conditions were tested.

Note that the layout on the monitor always contains the same elements with the ring being projected into the same eye as the moving grating or the opposite eye, et cetera. The key difference was in the minds of the volunteers whose brains were scanned?whether or not they consciously saw the grating (which they had to report) and whether or not they attended to it.

The cognitive neuroscientists measured the brain?s functional MRI response in the primary visual cortex (or V1) in the brain?s posterior. Roughly the area of a credit card, this part of the brain receives visual input from the eye. It is the first of 30 or more regions in the cortex that deal with visuomotor behaviors and visual perception.

houston nutt houston nutt peter marshall peter marshall zombie boy zombie boy harvard yale