Is semantic priming driven by the objective or perceived meaning of the priming stimulus? This question is relevant given that many studies suggest that the objective meaning of invisible stimuli can influence cognitive processes and behavior. In an experiment involving 66 participants, we tested how the perceived meaning of misperceived stimuli influenced response times. Stroop priming (i.e., longer response times for incongruent than for congruent prime-target pairs) was observed in trials in which the prime was correctly identified. However, reversed Stroop priming was observed when the prime stimulus was incorrectly identified. Even in trials in which participants reported no perception of the prime and identified the primes at close to chance level (i.e., trials that meet both subjective and objective definitions of being subliminal), Stroop priming corresponded to perceived congruency, not objective congruency. This result suggests that occasional weak percepts and mispercepts are intermixed with no percepts in conditions traditionally claimed to be subliminal, casting doubt on claims of subliminal priming made in previous reports.
BjörkmanM.JuslinP.WinmanA. (1993). Realism of confidence in sensory discrimination: The underconfidence phenomenon. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 75–81. doi:10.3758/BF03206939
2.
CheesmanJ.MerikleP. M. (1984). Priming with and without awareness. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 387–395. doi:10.3758/BF03202793
3.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
4.
CraikF. I. M.LockhartR. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
5.
DeanA. F. (1981). The variability of discharge of simple cells in the cat striate cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 44, 437–440. doi:10.1007/BF00238837
6.
DienesZ. (2015). How Bayesian statistics are needed to determine whether mental states are unconscious. In OvergaardM. (Ed.), Behavioural methods in consciousness research (pp. 199–220). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
7.
EimerM.SchlagheckenF. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737–1747. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1737
8.
ElwertF.WinshipC. (2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 31–53. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455
9.
GescheiderG. A. (1997). Psychophysics: The fundamentals (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
GoldJ. I.ShadlenM. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535–574. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038
11.
GoodhewS. C.VisserT. A. W.LippO. V.DuxP. E. (2011). Implicit semantic perception in object substitution masking. Cognition, 118, 130–134. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.013
12.
Grill-SpectorK.KnoufN.KanwisherN. (2004). The fusiform face area subserves face perception, not generic within-category identification. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 555–562. doi:10.1038/nn1224
13.
HaaseS. J.FiskG. D. (2015). Awareness of “invisible” arrows in a metacontrast masking paradigm. The American Journal of Psychology, 128, 15–30. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.1.0015
14.
HolenderD. (1986). Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual masking: A survey and appraisal. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 9, 1–23. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00021269
15.
HulmeO. J.FristonK. F.ZekiS. (2009). Neural correlates of stimulus reportability. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1602–1610. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21119
16.
KahanT. A. (2000). Negative priming from masked words: Retrospective prime clarification or center-surround inhibition?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1392–1410. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1392
17.
KouiderS.de GardelleV.SackurJ.DupouxE. (2010). How rich is consciousness? The partial awareness hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 301–307. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.04.006
18.
KouiderS.DehaeneS. (2007). Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: A critical review of visual masking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 857–875. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2093
19.
KouiderS.DupouxE. (2004). Partial awareness creates the “illusion” of subliminal semantic priming. Psychological Science, 15, 75–81. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502001.x
20.
LamyD.SaltiM.Bar-HaimY. (2009). Neural correlates of subjective awareness and unconscious processing: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1435–1446. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21064
21.
MacmillanN. A. (1986). The psychophysics of subliminal perception. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 9, 38–39. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00021427
22.
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
MassonM. E. J. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 3–23. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.3
24.
MathewsonK. E.GrattonG.FabianiM.BeckD. M.RoT. (2009). To see or not to see: Prestimulus phase predicts visual awareness. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 2725–2732. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3963-08.2009
25.
MerikleP. M.JoordensS. (1997). Parallels between perception without attention and perception without awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 219–236. doi:10.1006/ccog.1997.0310
26.
MillerJ. G. (1939). Discrimination without awareness. The American Journal of Psychology, 52, 562–578. doi:10.2307/1416469
27.
OvergaardM.RoteJ.MouridsenK.RamsøyT. Z. (2006). Is conscious perception gradual or dichotomous? A comparison of report methodologies during a visual task. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 700–708. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2006.04.002
28.
PessoaL.PadmalaS. (2005). Quantitative prediction of perceptual decisions during near-threshold fear detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 5612–5617. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500566102
29.
PougetA.BeckJ. M.MaW. J.LathamP. E. (2013). Probabilistic brains: Knowns and unknowns. Nature Neuroscience, 16, 1170–1178. doi:10.1038/nn.3495
30.
PratteM. S.RouderJ. N. (2009). A task-difficulty artifact in subliminal priming. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1276–1283. doi:10.3758/APP.71.6.1276
31.
ReingoldE. M.MerikleP. M. (1988). Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 563–575. doi:10.3758/BF03207490
32.
RomoR.de LafuenteV. (2013). Conversion of sensory signals into perceptual decisions. Progress in Neurobiology, 103, 41–75. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.03.007
33.
SandA. (2016). Reversed priming effects may be driven by misperception rather than subliminal processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 198. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00198
34.
SandA.NilssonM. E. (2016). Subliminal or not? Comparing null-hypothesis and Bayesian methods for testing subliminal priming. Consciousness and Cognition, 44, 29–40. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2016.06.012
35.
SandbergK.TimmermansB.OvergaardM.CleeremansA. (2010). Measuring consciousness: Is one measure better than the other?Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 1069–1078. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.013
36.
SchmidtT. (2015). Invisible stimuli, implicit thresholds: Why invisibility judgments cannot be interpreted in isolation. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11, 31–41. doi:10.5709/acp-0169-3
37.
ScholvinckM. L.SaleemA. B.BenucciA.HarrisK. D.CarandiniM. (2015). Cortical state determines global variability and correlations in visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 170–178. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4994-13.2015
38.
SnodgrassM.BernatE.ShevrinH. (2004). Unconscious perception: A model-based approach to method and evidence. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 846–867. doi:10.3758/BF03194978
39.
TzelgovJ.PoratZ.HenikA. (1997). Automaticity and consciousness: Is perceiving the word necessary for reading it?The American Journal of Psychology, 110, 429–448. doi:10.2307/1423567
40.
Van den BusscheE.Van den NoortgateW.ReynvoetB. (2009). Mechanisms of masked priming: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 452–477. doi:10.1037/a0015329
41.
Van den BusscheE.VermeirenA.DesenderK.GeversW.HughesG.VergutsT.ReynvoetB. (2013). Disentangling conscious and unconscious processing: A subjective trial-based assessment approach. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 769. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00769
42.
WiensS. (2007). Concepts of visual consciousness and their measurement. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 349–359. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0035-y
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
