Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

On the use of continuous flash suppression for the study of visual processing outside of awareness

  • Eunice Yang*
  • , Jan Brascamp
  • , Min Suk Kang
  • , Randolph Blake
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Seoul National University
  • University of California Office of the President
  • Sungkyunkwan University
  • Institute for Basic Science

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The interocular suppression technique termed continuous flash suppression (CFS) has become an immensely popular tool for investigating visual processing outside of awareness. The emerging picture from studies using CFS is that extensive processing of a visual stimulus, including its semantic and affective content, occurs despite suppression from awareness of that stimulus by CFS. However, the current implementation of CFS in many studies examining processing outside of awareness has several drawbacks that may be improved upon for future studies using CFS. In this paper, we address some of those shortcomings, particularly ones that affect the assessment of unawareness during CFS, and ones to do with the use of "visible" conditions that are often included as a comparison to a CFS condition. We also discuss potential biases in stimulus processing as a result of spatial attention and feature-selective suppression. We suggest practical guidelines that minimize the effects of those limitations in using CFS to study visual processing outside of awareness.

Original languageEnglish
Article number724
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Volume5
Issue numberJUL
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Keywords

  • Binocular rivalry
  • Continuous flash suppression
  • Interocular suppression
  • Unconscious processing
  • Visual processing

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'On the use of continuous flash suppression for the study of visual processing outside of awareness'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this