Brain & Nervous System Health Center
This article is from the WebMD News Archive
Reading the Mind: Did You See What I Saw?
April 25, 2005 -- The brain may notice more than we realize, and reading the mind might be making a little progress away from science fiction and toward reality.
Scientists can't literally delve into other people's thoughts. But a high-tech approach is helping reveal how the mind processes vision.
In two new studies published online in Nature Neuroscience, researchers predicted what people saw, even when images were displayed too briefly for focused attention.
The images were very basic, but the findings may hint at what the mind sees and how predictable it is.
Predictable Patterns
In the first study, four adults with normal vision were shown eight sets of parallel lines tilted in different directions. Meanwhile, their brains were monitored with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which measures changes in an active part of the brain.
A computer program showed subtle differences in brain activity for each set of lines. The program could predict which set of lines the viewer had seen.
Next, slanted lines were displayed together in a plaid pattern. Participants tended to focus more on one set of lines more than the other.
The computer program could predict which lines got more attention from each person, says the study. Experts working on the experiment included Yukiyasu Kamitani, a resident researcher with ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan.
Seeing 'Invisible' Images
Line patterns were also center stage in the second study. But this time, some images were virtually "invisible." Flashed in front of participants for a fraction of an instant, those images were masked from conscious attention.
But on some level, the mind apparently still noticed, the study indicates.
Using fMRI scans, the researchers were able to infer which images were being viewed by the participants even when the images were completely invisible to the participants, they write.
The study had only a few participants -- six people for two tests. All were adults with normal vision.

