Qualitatively Different Effects of Undetected and Unidentified Auditory Primes

Abstract

The suggestion that semantic activation can occur without conscious identification of the priming stimulus is still controversial. Many studies supporting such a contention, especially those where primes were auditorially presented, suffer from methodological shortcomings, frequently with regard to threshold measurement. In the study reported here 24 subjects underwent a considerably more rigorous thresholding procedure than has been usual, prior to engaging in a forced-choice sentence completion task. The results show that semantic priming operates when subjects were unable to detect the presence of primes and that phonological (but not semantic) priming operates when the primes were invariably detected but never correctly identified. The relevance of these qualitatively different effects of primes, as a function of the level at which they are presented, in discussed in the light of recent accounts of unconscious processing.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cheesman

Merikle

P. M.

(1984). Priming with and without awareness. Perception and Psychophysics 36, 387–395.

Cheesman

Merikle

P. M.

(1985). Word recognition and consciousness. Reading research: Advances in theory and practice. Besner

Waller

T. G.

MacKinnon

G. E.

New York: Academic Press Vol. 5.

Clark

H. H.

(1973). The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12, 335–359.

Dixon

N. F.

(1971). Subliminal perception: The nature of a controversy London: McGraw-Hill.

Dixon

N. F.

(1981). Preconscious processing London: Wiley.

Dixon

N. F.

(1986). On private events and brain events. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9, 29–30.

Groeger

J. A.

(1986). Predominant and non-predominant analysis: Effects of level of presentation. British Journal of Psychology 77, 109–118.

Groeger

J. A.

(in press). On not knowing the meaning of words we can detect: Crucial qualitative differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Henley

S. H. A.

(1976). Responses to homophones as a function of cue words on the unattended channel. British Journal of Psychology 67, (4) 559–567.

10.

Holender

(1986). Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual masking: A survey and appraisal. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9, 1–66.

11.

Levitt

(1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49, (2) 467–477.

12.

Marcel

A. J.

(1980). Conscious and preconscious recognition of polysemous words: Localizing the effect of prior verbal context. Attention and performance VIII. Nickerson

R. S.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.

13.

Marcel

A. J.

(1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: An approach to the relation between phenomenal experience and perceptual process. Cognitive Psychology 15, 238–300.

14.

Merikle

P. M.

(1982). Unconscious perception revisited. Perception and Psychophysics 31, 298–301.

15.

Merikle

P. M.

Cheesman

(1986). Consciousness is a “subjective” state. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9, 42–43.

16.

Mykel

Daves

W. E.

(1979). Emergence of unreported stimuli into imagery as a function of laterality of presentation: A replication and extension of research by Henley and Dixon. British Journal of Psychology 70, 253–258.

17.

Wetherill

G. B.

Levitt

(1965). Sequential estimation of points on a psychoacoustic function. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 18, 1–10.