A Personal Health App and Wearable Co-Design Framework for Rare and Complex Diseases: User-Centered, Collaborative Co-Design Study.
Authors: Goodday SM, Karlin E, Sorensen M, Yang R, Gordon P, Opoku C, Vuong D, Wilson J, McKenzie D, Piccotti J, Tavanti M, Fitzgerald M, Re'em Y, Wei H, Golden M, Morgan D, Manion M, Mosquera R, Shivas T, Hoover E, Peck A, Peck N, Yavarow Z, Bjornson-Pennell H, Stratton A, Anova Sahoo S, Arbittier D, Arbittier E, Goff R, Harvin-Graham D, Howard N, Knudsen C, Oldham M, Friend S
Journal: JMIR mHealth and uHealth
mental health
psychology
open access
Abstract
Perceptual consciousness refers to the subjective experience associated with
processing sensory stimuli. When presented with images, sounds, touches, tastes, or
smells, humans not only register these inputs but also report vivid conscious
experiences. Understanding the mechanisms underlying perceptual consciousness has
been a focus of research in philosophy and psychology for centuries (; ). A major shift occurred with the
proposal by to
identify (NCCs) – the minimal
neural mechanisms jointly sufficient for a particular conscious percept to occur. In
empirical research, studies on NCCs relied mostly on the (; ), where neural activity is
compared between trials where the same stimulus is consciously perceived or not (see
). In the conscious condition,
participants report perceiving a critical stimulus. The same critical stimulus is
presented in the unconscious condition, but participants report not being conscious
of it (note that NCC research differs from the study of the neural correlates of
unconscious processing, which is focused on the processing of stimuli that
participants do not consciously perceive, ), due to various psychophysical tricks including
backward masking, binocular rivalry, (continuous) flash suppression, the attentional
blink, and the presentation of near-threshold stimuli (see ; for reviews). Participants are asked to make subjective
reports of consciousness (), which allows distinguishing between trials in which they did and
did not consciously perceive the stimulus (see , for potential issues with this approach).
Crucially, the two conditions must differ minimally in terms of the stimulus
presentation parameters so that the observed neural differences can be attributed to
perceptual consciousness, rather than differences in display parameters. (In
contrastive studies that use backward masking to render stimuli invisible, e.g.,
; , while the critical
stimulus is the same across all trials, the mask is presented earlier relative to
the onset of the critical stimulus or for a longer duration in the conscious than
the unconscious condition. This systematic difference in stimulation parameters
across conditions is a possible confound when interpreting neural activity. In
recent years, the field has moved to paradigms where stimulation parameters are the
same in both conditions, e.g., near-threshold paradigm depicted in .) Apart from the contrastive approach,
recent studies have also relied on a supraliminal approach, in which participants
are presented with clear but task-irrelevant stimuli (see ; ; ; and below for
further details). In the contrastive approach (left), the visibility of stimuli is manipulated
across trials such that they are either perceived (conscious trials) or not
perceived (unconscious trials). Two of the most popular paradigms to
manipulate visibility, near-threshold presentation of stimuli and backward
masking, are depicted. In report tasks, participants perform button presses
or saccadic eye movements to report whether they perceived the stimulus or
not. In no-report tasks, attentional manipulations, stimulus intensity, or
automatic oculomotor or pupillary responses (e.g., optokinetic nystagmus,
pupil dilation) are used to infer if the stimulus was perceived or not.
Neural signals that correlate with consciousness should differ across trials
that are classified as conscious and unconscious. In the supraliminal
approach (right), full contrast stimuli are presented and are assumed to
always be consciously perceived. Trials are compared across conditions that
differ in the characteristics of the stimuli, such as presentation duration
(discussed below). It is also helpful to distinguish between levels of consciousness, defined as a
global level of arousal or wakefulness (e.g., being awake vs. under anesthesia), and
the contents of consciousness, defined as the specific subjective experiences one
has while conscious (e.g., perceiving a visual stimulus; ; ). Though the majority of this review focuses on the
contents of consciousness, the two dimensions are intrinsically linked, as global
states typically set the conditions for the occurrence of specific conscious
contents.
processing sensory stimuli. When presented with images, sounds, touches, tastes, or
smells, humans not only register these inputs but also report vivid conscious
experiences. Understanding the mechanisms underlying perceptual consciousness has
been a focus of research in philosophy and psychology for centuries (; ). A major shift occurred with the
proposal by to
identify (NCCs) – the minimal
neural mechanisms jointly sufficient for a particular conscious percept to occur. In
empirical research, studies on NCCs relied mostly on the (; ), where neural activity is
compared between trials where the same stimulus is consciously perceived or not (see
). In the conscious condition,
participants report perceiving a critical stimulus. The same critical stimulus is
presented in the unconscious condition, but participants report not being conscious
of it (note that NCC research differs from the study of the neural correlates of
unconscious processing, which is focused on the processing of stimuli that
participants do not consciously perceive, ), due to various psychophysical tricks including
backward masking, binocular rivalry, (continuous) flash suppression, the attentional
blink, and the presentation of near-threshold stimuli (see ; for reviews). Participants are asked to make subjective
reports of consciousness (), which allows distinguishing between trials in which they did and
did not consciously perceive the stimulus (see , for potential issues with this approach).
Crucially, the two conditions must differ minimally in terms of the stimulus
presentation parameters so that the observed neural differences can be attributed to
perceptual consciousness, rather than differences in display parameters. (In
contrastive studies that use backward masking to render stimuli invisible, e.g.,
; , while the critical
stimulus is the same across all trials, the mask is presented earlier relative to
the onset of the critical stimulus or for a longer duration in the conscious than
the unconscious condition. This systematic difference in stimulation parameters
across conditions is a possible confound when interpreting neural activity. In
recent years, the field has moved to paradigms where stimulation parameters are the
same in both conditions, e.g., near-threshold paradigm depicted in .) Apart from the contrastive approach,
recent studies have also relied on a supraliminal approach, in which participants
are presented with clear but task-irrelevant stimuli (see ; ; ; and below for
further details). In the contrastive approach (left), the visibility of stimuli is manipulated
across trials such that they are either perceived (conscious trials) or not
perceived (unconscious trials). Two of the most popular paradigms to
manipulate visibility, near-threshold presentation of stimuli and backward
masking, are depicted. In report tasks, participants perform button presses
or saccadic eye movements to report whether they perceived the stimulus or
not. In no-report tasks, attentional manipulations, stimulus intensity, or
automatic oculomotor or pupillary responses (e.g., optokinetic nystagmus,
pupil dilation) are used to infer if the stimulus was perceived or not.
Neural signals that correlate with consciousness should differ across trials
that are classified as conscious and unconscious. In the supraliminal
approach (right), full contrast stimuli are presented and are assumed to
always be consciously perceived. Trials are compared across conditions that
differ in the characteristics of the stimuli, such as presentation duration
(discussed below). It is also helpful to distinguish between levels of consciousness, defined as a
global level of arousal or wakefulness (e.g., being awake vs. under anesthesia), and
the contents of consciousness, defined as the specific subjective experiences one
has while conscious (e.g., perceiving a visual stimulus; ; ). Though the majority of this review focuses on the
contents of consciousness, the two dimensions are intrinsically linked, as global
states typically set the conditions for the occurrence of specific conscious
contents.