Distinct neural bases of subcomponents of the attentional blink

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors used a multi-alternative decision task and a multidimensional signal-detection model to gain further insight into the cause of perceptual impairments during the attentional blink. The model-based analyses of behavioural and EEG data show that such perceptual failures can be unpacked into distinct deficits in visual detection and discrimination, with visual detection being linked to the amplitude of late ERP components (N2P and P3) and discrimination being linked to the coherence of fronto-parietal brain activity.

Strengths:

The main strength of this paper lies in the fact that it presents a novel perspective on the cause of perceptual failures during the attentional blink. The multidimensional signal-detection modelling approach is explained clearly, and the results of the study show that this approach offers a powerful method to unpack behavioural and EEG data into distinct processes of detection and discrimination.

Weaknesses:

While the model-based analyses are compelling, the paper also features some analyses that seem misguided, or, at least, insufficiently motivated and explained. Specifically, in the introduction, the authors raise the suggestion that the attentional blink could be due to a reduction in sensitivity or a response bias. The suggestion that a response bias could play a role seems misguided, as any response bias would be expected to be constant across lags, while the attentional blink effect is only observed at short lags. Thus, it is difficult to understand why the authors would think that a response bias could explain the attentional blink.

A second point of concern regards the way in which the measures for detection and discrimination accuracy were computed. If I understand the paper correctly, a correct detection was defined as either correctly identifying T2 (i.e., reporting CW or CCW if T2 was CW or CCW, respectively, see Figure 2B), or correctly reporting T2's absence (a correct rejection). Here, it seems that one should also count a misidentification (i.e., incorrect choice of CW or CCW when T2 was present) as a correct detection, because participants apparently did detect T2, but failed to judge/remember its orientation properly in case of a misidentification. Conversely, the manner in which discrimination performance is computed also raises questions. Here, the authors appear to compute accuracy as the average proportion of T2-present trials on which participants selected the correct response option for T2, thus including trials in which participants missed T2 entirely. Thus, a failure to detect T2 is now counted as a failure to discriminate T2. Wouldn't a more proper measure of discrimination accuracy be to compute the proportion of correct discriminations for trials in which participants detected T2?

My last point of critique is that the paper offers little if any guidance on how the inferred distinction between detection and discrimination can be linked to existing theories of the attentional blink. The discussion mostly focuses on comparisons to previous EEG studies, but it would be interesting to know how the authors connect their findings to extant, mechanistic accounts of the attentional blink. A key question here is whether the finding of dissociable processes of detection and discrimination would also hold with more meaningful stimuli in an identification task (e.g., the canonical AB task of identifying two letters shown amongst digits). There is evidence to suggest that meaningful stimuli are categorized just as quickly as they are detected (Grill-Spector & Kanwisher, 2005; Grill-Spector K, Kanwisher N. Visual recognition: as soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychol Sci. 2005 Feb;16(2):152-60. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00796.x. PMID: 15686582.). Does that mean that the observed distinction between detection and discrimination would only apply to tasks in which the targets consist of otherwise meaningless visual elements, such as lines of different orientations?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors had two aims: First, to decompose the attentional blink (AB) deficit into the two components of signal detection theory; sensitivity and bias. Second, the authors aimed to assess the two subcomponents of sensitivity; detection and discrimination. They observed that the AB is only expressed in sensitivity. Furthermore, detection and discrimination were doubly dissociated. Detection modulated N2p and P3 ERP amplitude, but not frontoparietal beta-band coherence, whereas this pattern was reversed for discrimination.

Strengths:

The experiment is elegantly designed, and the data - both behavioral and electrophysiological - are aptly analyzed. The outcomes, in particular the dissociation between detection and discrimination blinks, are consistently and clearly supported by the results. The discussion of the results is also appropriately balanced.

Weaknesses:

The lack of an effect of stimulus contrast does not seem very surprising from what we know of the nature of AB already. Low-level perceptual factors are not thought to cause AB. This is fine, as there are also other, novel findings reported, but perhaps the authors could bolster the importance of these (null) findings by referring to AB-specific papers, if there are indeed any, that would have predicted different outcomes in this regard.

On an analytical note, the ERP analysis could be finetuned a little more. The task design does not allow measurement of the N2pc or N400 components, which are also relevant to the AB, but the N1 component could additionally be analyzed. In doing so, I would furthermore recommend selecting more lateral electrode sites for both the N1, as well as the P1. Both P1 and N1 are likely not maximal near the midline, where the authors currently focused their P1 analysis.

Impact & Context:

The results of this study will likely influence how we think about selective attention in the context of the AB phenomenon. However, I think its impact could be further improved by extending its theoretical framing. In particular, there has been some recent work on the nature of the AB deficit, showing that it can be discrete (all-or-none) and gradual (Sy et al., 2021; Karabay et al., 2022, both in JEP: General). These different faces of target awareness in the AB may be linked directly to the detection and discrimination subcomponents that are analyzed in the present paper. I would encourage the authors to discuss this potential link and comment on the bearing of the present work on these previous behavioral findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present study, the authors aimed to achieve a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the attentional blink, that is, a deficit in processing the second of two target stimuli when they appear in rapid succession. Specifically, they used a concurrent detection and identification task in- and outside of the attentional blink and decoupled effects of perceptual sensitivity and response bias using a novel signal detection model. They conclude that the attentional blink selectively impairs perceptual sensitivity but not response bias, and link established EEG markers of the attentional blink to deficits in stimulus detection (N2p, P3) and discrimination (fronto-parietal high-beta coherence), respectively. Taken together, their study suggests distinct mechanisms mediating detection and discrimination deficits in the attentional blink.

Strengths:

Major strengths of the present study include its innovative approach to investigating the mechanisms underlying the attentional blink, an elegant, carefully calibrated experimental paradigm, a novel signal detection model, and multifaceted data analyses using state-of-the-art model comparisons and robust statistical tests. The study appears to have been carefully conducted and the overall conclusions seem warranted given the results. In my opinion, the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the current literature on the attentional blink. Moreover, the novel paradigm and signal detection model are likely to stimulate future research.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses of the present manuscript mainly concern the negligence of some relevant literature, unclear hypotheses, potentially data-driven analyses, relatively low statistical power, potential flaws in the EEG methods, and the absence of a discussion of limitations. In the following, I will list some major and minor concerns in detail.

Major points

Hypotheses:
I appreciate the multifaceted, in-depth analysis of the given dataset including its high amount of different statistical tests. However, neither the Introduction nor the Methods contain specific statistical hypotheses. Moreover, many of the tests (e.g., correlations) rely on selected results of previous tests. It is unclear how many of the tests were planned a priori, how many more were performed, and how exactly corrections for multiple tests were implemented. Thus, I find it difficult to assess the robustness of the results.

Power:
Some important null findings may result from the rather small sample sizes of N = 24 for behavioral and N = 18 for ERP analyses. For example, the correlation between detection and discrimination d' deficits across participants (r=0.39, p=0.059) (p. 12, l. 263) and the attentional blink effect on the P1 component (p=0.050, no test statistic) (p. 14, 301) could each have been significant with one more participant. In my opinion, such results should not be interpreted as evidence for the absence of effects.

Neural basis of the attentional blink:
The introduction (e.g., p. 4, l. 56-76) and discussion (e.g., p. 19, 427-447) do not incorporate the insights from the highly relevant recent review by Zivony & Lamy (2022), which is only cited once (p. 19, l. 428). Moreover, the sections do not mention some relevant ERP studies of the attentional blink (e.g., Batterink et al., 2012; Craston et al., 2009; Dell'Acqua et al., 2015; Dellert et al., 2022; Eiserbeck et al., 2022; Meijs et al., 2018).

Detection versus discrimination:
Concerning the neural basis of detection versus discrimination (e.g., p. 6, l. 98-110; p. 18, l. 399-412), relevant existing literature (e.g., Broadbent & Broadbent, 1987; Hillis & Brainard, 2007; Koivisto et al., 2017; Straube & Fahle, 2011; Wiens et al., 2023) is not included.

Pooling of lags and lag 1 sparing:
I wonder why the authors chose to include 5 different lags when they later pooled early (100, 300 ms) and late (700, 900 ms) lags, and whether this pooling is justified. This is important because T2 at lag 1 (100 ms) is typically "spared" (high accuracy) while T2 at lag 3 (300 ms) shows the maximum AB (for reviews, see, e.g., Dux & Marois, 2009; Martens & Wyble, 2010). Interestingly, this sparing was not observed here (p. 43, Figure 2). Nevertheless, considering the literature and the research questions at hand, it is questionable whether lag 1 and 3 should be pooled.

Discrimination in the attentional blink
Concerning the claims that previous attentional blink studies conflated detection and discrimination (p. 6, l. 111-114; p. 18, l. 416), there is a recent ERP study (Dellert et al., 2022) in which participants did not perform a discrimination task for the T2 stimuli. Moreover, since the relevance of all stimuli except T1 was uncertain in this study, irrelevant distractors could not be filtered out (cf. p. 19, l. 437). Under these conditions, the attentional blink was still associated with reduced negativities in the N2 range (cf. p. 19, l. 427-437) but not with a reduced P3 (cf. p. 19, l 439-447).

General EEG methods:
While most of the description of the EEG preprocessing and analysis (p. 31/32) is appropriate, it also lacks some important information (see, e.g., Keil et al., 2014). For example, it does not include the length of the segments, the type and proportion of artifacts rejected, the number of trials used for averaging in each condition, specific hypotheses, and the test statistics (in addition to p-values).

EEG filters:
P. 31, l. 728: "The data were (...) bandpass filtered between 0.5 to 18 Hz (...). Next, a bandstop filter from 9-11 Hz was applied to remove the 10 Hz oscillations evoked by the RSVP presentation." These filter settings do not follow common recommendations and could potentially induce filter distortions (e.g., Luck, 2014; Zhang et al., 2024). For example, the 0.5 high-pass filter could distort the slow P3 wave. Mostly, I am concerned about the bandstop filter. Since the authors commendably corrected for RSVP-evoked responses by subtracting T2-absent from T2-present ERPs (p. 31, l. 746), I wonder why the additional filter was necessary, and whether it might have removed relevant peaks in the ERPs of interest.

Coherence analysis:
P. 33, l. 786: "For subsequent, partial correlation analyses of coherence with behavioral metrics and neural distances (...), we focused on a 300 ms time period (0-300 ms following T2 onset) and high-beta frequency band (20-30 Hz) identified by the cluster-based permutation test (Fig. 5A-C)." I wonder whether there were any a priori criteria for the definition and selection of such successive analyses. Given the many factors (frequency bands, hemispheres) in the analyses and the particular shape of the cluster (p. 49, Fig 5C), this focus seems largely data-driven. It remains unclear how many such tests were performed and whether the results (e.g., the resulting weak correlation of r = 0.22 in one frequency band and one hemisphere in one part of a complexly shaped cluster; p. 15, l. 327) can be considered robust.

References
Batterink, L., Karns, C. M., & Neville, H. (2012). Dissociable mechanisms supporting awareness: The P300 and gamma in a linguistic attentional blink task. Cerebral Cortex, 22(12), 2733-2744. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr346
Broadbent, D. E., & Broadbent, M. H. P. (1987). From detection to identification: Response to multiple targets in rapid serial visual presentation. Perception & Psychophysics, 42(2), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210498
Craston, P., Wyble, B., Chennu, S., & Bowman, H. (2009). The attentional blink reveals serial working memory encoding: Evidence from virtual and human event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 550-566. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21036
Dell'Acqua, R., Dux, P. E., Wyble, B., Doro, M., Sessa, P., Meconi, F., & Jolicœur, P. (2015). The attentional blink impairs detection and delays encoding of visual information: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(4), 720-735. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00752
Dellert, T., Krebs, S., Bruchmann, M., Schindler, S., Peters, A., & Straube, T. (2022). Neural correlates of consciousness in an attentional blink paradigm with uncertain target relevance. NeuroImage, 264C, 119679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119679
Dux, P. E., & Marois, R. (2009). The attentional blink: A review of data and theory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(8), 1683-1700. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.8.1683
Hillis, J. M., & Brainard, D. H. (2007). Distinct mechanisms mediate visual detection and identification. Current Biology, 17(19), 1714-1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.012
Keil, A., Debener, S., Gratton, G., Junghöfer, M., Kappenman, E. S., Luck, S. J., Luu, P., Miller, G. A., & Yee, C. M. (2014). Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography. Psychophysiology, 51(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12147
Koivisto, M., Grassini, S., Salminen-Vaparanta, N., & Revonsuo, A. (2017). Different electrophysiological correlates of visual awareness for detection and identification. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1621-1631. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01149
Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. MIT Press.
Martens, S., & Wyble, B. (2010). The attentional blink: Past, present, and future of a blind spot in perceptual awareness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(6), 947-957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.12.005
Meijs, E. L., Slagter, H. A., de Lange, F. P., & Gaal, S. van. (2018). Dynamic interactions between top-down expectations and conscious awareness. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(9), 2318-2327. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1952-17.2017
Straube, S., & Fahle, M. (2011). Visual detection and identification are not the same: Evidence from psychophysics and fMRI. Brain and Cognition, 75(1), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2010.10.004
Wiens, S., Andersson, A., & Gravenfors, J. (2023). Neural electrophysiological correlates of detection and identification awareness. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-023-01120-5
Zhang, G., Garrett, D. R., & Luck, S. J. (2024). Optimal filters for ERP research II: Recommended settings for seven common ERP components. Psychophysiology, n/a(n/a), e14530. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14530

Author response:

Reviewer #1:

Summary:

In this study, the authors used a multi-alternative decision task and a multidimensional signal-detection model to gain further insight into the cause of perceptual impairments during the attentional blink. The model-based analyses of behavioural and EEG data show that such perceptual failures can be unpacked into distinct deficits in visual detection and discrimination, with visual detection being linked to the amplitude of late ERP components (N2P and P3) and discrimination being linked to the coherence of fronto-parietal brain activity.

Strengths:

The main strength of this paper lies in the fact that it presents a novel perspective on the cause of perceptual failures during the attentional blink. The multidimensional signaldetection modelling approach is explained clearly, and the results of the study show that this approach offers a powerful method to unpack behavioural and EEG data into distinct processes of detection and discrimination.

Weaknesses:

(1.1) While the model-based analyses are compelling, the paper also features some analyses that seem misguided, or, at least, insufficiently motivated and explained. Specifically, in the introduction, the authors raise the suggestion that the attentional blink could be due to a reduction in sensitivity or a response bias. The suggestion that a response bias could play a role seems misguided, as any response bias would be expected to be constant across lags, while the attentional blink effect is only observed at short lags. Thus, it is difficult to understand why the authors would think that a response bias could explain the attentional blink.

A deficit in T2 identification accuracy could arise from either sensitivity or criterion effects; the criterion effect may manifest as a choice bias. For example, in short T1-T2 lag trials, when T2 closely follows T1, participants may adopt a more conservative choice criterion for reporting the presence of T2. Moreover, criterion effects need not be uniform across lags: A participant could infer the T1-T2 lag interval based on various factors, including trial length, thereby permitting them to adjust their choice criterion variably across different lags. We will provide a more detailed illustration of this claim in the revision.

(1.2) A second point of concern regards the way in which the measures for detection and discrimination accuracy were computed. If I understand the paper correctly, a correct detection was defined as either correctly identifying T2 (i.e., reporting CW or CCW if T2 was CW or CCW, respectively, see Figure 2B), or correctly reporting T2's absence (a correct rejection). Here, it seems that one should also count a misidentification (i.e., incorrect choice of CW or CCW when T2 was present) as a correct detection, because participants apparently did detect T2, but failed to judge/remember its orientation properly in case of a misidentification. Conversely, the manner in which discrimination performance is computed also raises questions. Here, the authors appear to compute accuracy as the average proportion of T2-present trials on which participants selected the correct response option for T2, thus including trials in which participants missed T2 entirely. Thus, a failure to detect T2 is now counted as a failure to discriminate T2. Wouldn't a more proper measure of discrimination accuracy be to compute the proportion of correct discriminations for trials in which participants detected T2?

Detection and discrimination accuracies were computed with precisely the same procedure, and under the same conditions, as described by the Reviewer (underlined text, above). We regret our poor description; we will improve upon it in the revised manuscript.

(1.3) My last point of critique is that the paper offers little if any guidance on how the inferred distinction between detection and discrimination can be linked to existing theories of the attentional blink. The discussion mostly focuses on comparisons to previous EEG studies, but it would be interesting to know how the authors connect their findings to extant, mechanistic accounts of the attentional blink. A key question here is whether the finding of dissociable processes of detection and discrimination would also hold with more meaningful stimuli in an identification task (e.g., the canonical AB task of identifying two letters shown amongst digits). There is evidence to suggest that meaningful stimuli are categorized just as quickly as they are detected (Grill-Spector & Kanwisher, 2005; Grill-Spector K, Kanwisher N. Visual recognition: as soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychol Sci. 2005 Feb;16(2):152-60. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00796.x. PMID: 15686582.). Does that mean that the observed distinction between detection and discrimination would only apply to tasks in which the targets consist of otherwise meaningless visual elements, such as lines of different orientations?

Our results are consistent with previous literature suggested by the Reviewer. Specifically, we do not claim that detection and discrimination are sequential processes; in fact, we modeled them as concurrent computations (Figs. 3A-B). Yet, our results suggest that these processes possess distinct neural bases. We have discussed this idea briefly in the Discussion section (e.g., “Yet, we found no evidence for these two computations being sequential…”). We will discuss this further in the revised manuscript in the context of previous literature.

Reviewer #2:

Summary:

The authors had two aims: First, to decompose the attentional blink (AB) deficit into the two components of signal detection theory; sensitivity and bias. Second, the authors aimed to assess the two subcomponents of sensitivity; detection and discrimination. They observed that the AB is only expressed in sensitivity. Furthermore, detection and discrimination were doubly dissociated. Detection modulated N2p and P3 ERP amplitude, but not frontoparietal beta-band coherence, whereas this pattern was reversed for discrimination.

Strengths:

The experiment is elegantly designed, and the data - both behavioral and electrophysiological - are aptly analyzed. The outcomes, in particular the dissociation between detection and discrimination blinks, are consistently and clearly supported by the results. The discussion of the results is also appropriately balanced.

Weaknesses:

(2.1) The lack of an effect of stimulus contrast does not seem very surprising from what we know of the nature of AB already. Low-level perceptual factors are not thought to cause AB. This is fine, as there are also other, novel findings reported, but perhaps the authors could bolster the importance of these (null) findings by referring to AB-specific papers, if there are indeed any, that would have predicted different outcomes in this regard.

While there is consensus that the low-level perceptual factors are not affected by the attentional blink, other studies may suggest evidence to the contrary (e.g., Chua et al, Percept. Psychophys., 2005). We will highlight the significance of our findings in the context of such conflicting evidence in literature, in the revised manuscript.

(2.2) On an analytical note, the ERP analysis could be finetuned a little more. The task design does not allow measurement of the N2pc or N400 components, which are also relevant to the AB, but the N1 component could additionally be analyzed. In doing so, I would furthermore recommend selecting more lateral electrode sites for both the N1, as well as the P1. Both P1 and N1 are likely not maximal near the midline, where the authors currently focused their P1 analysis.

We will incorporate these additional analyses in the revised manuscript.

(2.3) Impact & Context:

The results of this study will likely influence how we think about selective attention in the context of the AB phenomenon. However, I think its impact could be further improved by extending its theoretical framing. In particular, there has been some recent work on the nature of the AB deficit, showing that it can be discrete (all-or-none) and gradual (Sy et al., 2021; Karabay et al., 2022, both in JEP: General). These different faces of target awareness in the AB may be linked directly to the detection and discrimination subcomponents that are analyzed in the present paper. I would encourage the authors to discuss this potential link and comment on the bearing of the present work on these behavioural findings.

Thank you. We will discuss our findings in the context of these recent studies.

Reviewer #3:

Summary:

In the present study, the authors aimed to achieve a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the attentional blink, that is, a deficit in processing the second of two target stimuli when they appear in rapid succession. Specifically, they used a concurrent detection and identification task in- and outside of the attentional blink and decoupled effects of perceptual sensitivity and response bias using a novel signal detection model. They conclude that the attentional blink selectively impairs perceptual sensitivity but not response bias, and link established EEG markers of the attentional blink to deficits in stimulus detection (N2p, P3) and discrimination (fronto-parietal high-beta coherence), respectively. Taken together, their study suggests distinct mechanisms mediating detection and discrimination deficits in the attentional blink.

Strengths:

Major strengths of the present study include its innovative approach to investigating the mechanisms underlying the attentional blink, an elegant, carefully calibrated experimental paradigm, a novel signal detection model, and multifaceted data analyses using state-of-theart model comparisons and robust statistical tests. The study appears to have been carefully conducted and the overall conclusions seem warranted given the results. In my opinion, the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the current literature on the attentional blink. Moreover, the novel paradigm and signal detection model are likely to stimulate future research.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses of the present manuscript mainly concern the negligence of some relevant literature, unclear hypotheses, potentially data-driven analyses, relatively low statistical power, potential flaws in the EEG methods, and the absence of a discussion of limitations. In the following, I will list some major and minor concerns in detail.

Major points

(3.1) Hypotheses:

I appreciate the multifaceted, in-depth analysis of the given dataset including its high amount of different statistical tests. However, neither the Introduction nor the Methods contain specific statistical hypotheses. Moreover, many of the tests (e.g., correlations) rely on selected results of previous tests. It is unclear how many of the tests were planned a priori, how many more were performed, and how exactly corrections for multiple tests were implemented. Thus, I find it difficult to assess the robustness of the results.

As outlined in the Introduction, we hypothesized that neural computations associated with target detection would be characterized by regional neuronal markers (e.g., parietal or occipital ERPs), whereas computations linked to feature discrimination may involve neural coordination across multiple brain regions (e.g. fronto-parietal coherence). We planned and conducted our statistical tests based on this hypothesis. All multiple comparison corrections (e.g., Bonferroni-Holm correction, see Methods) were performed separately for each class of analyses. We will clarify these hypotheses and provide further details in the revised manuscript.

(3.2) Power:

Some important null findings may result from the rather small sample sizes of N = 24 for behavioral and N = 18 for ERP analyses. For example, the correlation between detection and discrimination d' deficits across participants (r=0.39, p=0.059) (p. 12, l. 263) and the attentional blink effect on the P1 component (p=0.050, no test statistic) (p. 14, 301) could each have been significant with one more participant. In my opinion, such results should not be interpreted as evidence for the absence of effects.

We agree and will revise the manuscript accordingly. We will also report Bayes factor (BF) values, where relevant, to further evaluate these claims.

(3.3) Neural basis of the attentional blink:

The introduction (e.g., p. 4, l. 56-76) and discussion (e.g., p. 19, 427-447) do not incorporate the insights from the highly relevant recent review by Zivony & Lamy (2022), which is only cited once (p. 19, l. 428). Moreover, the sections do not mention some relevant ERP studies of the attentional blink (e.g., Batterink et al., 2012; Craston et al., 2009; Dell'Acqua et al., 2015; Dellert et al., 2022; Eiserbeck et al., 2022; Meijs et al., 2018).

We will motivate and discuss our study in the context of these previous studies.

(3.4) Detection versus discrimination:

Concerning the neural basis of detection versus discrimination (e.g., p. 6, l. 98-110; p. 18, l. 399-412), relevant existing literature (e.g., Broadbent & Broadbent, 1987; Hillis & Brainard, 2007; Koivisto et al., 2017; Straube & Fahle, 2011; Wiens et al., 2023) is not included.

Thank you for these suggestions. We will include these important studies in our discussion.

(3.5) Pooling of lags and lags 1 sparing:

I wonder why the authors chose to include 5 different lags when they later pooled early (100, 300 ms) and late (700, 900 ms) lags, and whether this pooling is justified. This is important because T2 at lag 1 (100 ms) is typically "spared" (high accuracy) while T2 at lag 3 (300 ms) shows the maximum AB (for reviews, see, e.g., Dux & Marois, 2009; Martens & Wyble, 2010). Interestingly, this sparing was not observed here (p. 43, Figure 2). Nevertheless, considering the literature and the research questions at hand, it is questionable whether lag 1 and 3 should be pooled.

Lag-1 sparing is not always observed in attentional blink studies; there are notable exceptions that do not report such sparing (Hommel et al., Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 2005; Livesay et al., Attention, Percept. Psychophys., 2011). Our statistical tests revealed no significant difference in accuracies between short lag (100 and 300 ms) trials or between long lag (700 and 900 ms) trials but did reveal significant differences between the short and long lag trials (ANOVA, followed by post-hoc tests). To simplify the presentation of the findings, we pooled together the short lag (100 and 300 ms) and, separately, the long lag (700 and 900 ms) trials. We will present these analyses, and clarify the motivation for pooling in the revised manuscript.

(3.6) Discrimination in the attentional blink

Concerning the claims that previous attentional blink studies conflated detection and discrimination (p. 6, l. 111-114; p. 18, l. 416), there is a recent ERP study (Dellert et al., 2022) in which participants did not perform a discrimination task for the T2 stimuli. Moreover, since the relevance of all stimuli except T1 was uncertain in this study, irrelevant distractors could not be filtered out (cf. p. 19, l. 437). Under these conditions, the attentional blink was still associated with reduced negativities in the N2 range (cf. p. 19, l. 427-437) but not with a reduced P3 (cf. p. 19, l 439-447).

We will address the difference between our findings and those of Dellert et al (2022) in the revised manuscript.

(3.7) General EEG methods:

While most of the description of the EEG preprocessing and analysis (p. 31/32) is appropriate, it also lacks some important information (see, e.g., Keil et al., 2014). For example, it does not include the length of the segments, the type and proportion of artifacts rejected, the number of trials used for averaging in each condition, specific hypotheses, and the test statistics (in addition to p-values).

We regret the oversight. We will include these details in the revised Methods.

(3.8) EEG filters:

P. 31, l. 728: "The data were (...) bandpass filtered between 0.5 to 18 Hz (...). Next, a bandstop filter from 9-11 Hz was applied to remove the 10 Hz oscillations evoked by the RSVP presentation." These filter settings do not follow common recommendations and could potentially induce filter distortions (e.g., Luck, 2014; Zhang et al., 2024). For example, the 0.5 high-pass filter could distort the slow P3 wave. Mostly, I am concerned about the bandstop filter. Since the authors commendably corrected for RSVP-evoked responses by subtracting T2-absent from T2-present ERPs (p. 31, l. 746), I wonder why the additional filter was necessary, and whether it might have removed relevant peaks in the ERPs of interest.

Thank you for this suggestion. We will repeat this analysis by removing these additional filters.

(3.9) Coherence analysis:

P. 33, l. 786: "For subsequent, partial correlation analyses of coherence with behavioral metrics and neural distances (...), we focused on a 300 ms time period (0-300 ms following T2 onset) and high-beta frequency band (20-30 Hz) identified by the cluster-based permutation test (Fig. 5A-C)." I wonder whether there were any a priori criteria for the definition and selection of such successive analyses. Given the many factors (frequency bands, hemispheres) in the analyses and the particular shape of the cluster (p. 49, Fig 5C), this focus seems largely data-driven. It remains unclear how many such tests were performed and whether the results (e.g., the resulting weak correlation of r = 0.22 in one frequency band and one hemisphere in one part of a complexly shaped cluster; p. 15, l. 327) can be considered robust.

Please see responses to comments #3.1 and #3.2 (above). In addition to reporting further details regarding statistical tests and multiple comparisons corrections, we will compute and report Bayes factors to quantify the strength of the evidence for correlations, as appropriate.