The Influence of Prime-Related Trial-Wise Visibility Measures on Masked Response Priming

Abstract

Masked priming paradigms have been widely used to investigate the processing of nonconscious visual stimuli. Few studies have considered that trial-by-trial assessments of prime visibility turn masked priming paradigms into dual-tasking situations. In our study, we conducted two experiments using metacontrast to investigate how different subjective and objective visibility measures influence masked response priming under single- and dual-task conditions. Both experiments revealed larger priming effects in the dual-task than in the single-task conditions, supporting the notion that the prime-related response draws attention to the prime, thereby enhancing its processing and the resulting priming effects. Experiment 1 further showed that response times were faster and priming effects larger for bimanual than for unimanual responses. Differences between subjective and objective visibility measures were observed in Experiment 1, but not confirmed in Experiment 2. Furthermore, varying the task relevance of the prime arrow’s direction by employing specific instructions either highlighting arrow direction or non-directional prime features failed to produce any significant differences in priming effects. Taken together, our results show that trial-by-trial assessments of prime visibility in a metacontrast masking paradigm can enhance priming effects and suggest that the choice of visibility measure plays a minimal role, as the existence of a trial-wise visibility measures matters more than its format.

Keywords

masked response priming dual task visibility measure task relevance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ansorge

Khalid

Laback

(2016). Unconscious cross-modal priming of auditory sound localization by visual words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(6), 925–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000217

Avneon

Lamy

(2018). Reexamining unconscious response priming: A liminal-prime paradigm. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 59, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.12.006

Bakeman

(2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192707

Baker

D. H.

Vilidaite

Lygo

F. A.

Smith

A. K.

Flack

T. R.

Gouws

A. D.

Andrews

T. J.

(2021). Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience. Psychological Methods, 26(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000337

Bartoń

(2025). MuMIn: Multi-model inference (version 1.48.11) [Software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

(2003). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4 (S. 1.1-35.5) [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.lme4

Benthien

F. M.

Hesselmann

(2021). Does location uncertainty modulate unconscious processing under continuous flash suppression? Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 17(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0312-3

Berger

Kiefer

(2021). Comparison of different response time outlier exclusion methods: A simulation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 675558. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675558

Biafora

Schmidt

(2022). Juggling too many balls at once: Qualitatively different effects when measuring priming and masking in single, dual, and triple tasks (arXiv:2208.13675). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2208.13675

10.

Biehl

S. C.

Ehlis

A.-C.

Müller

L. D.

Niklaus

Pauli

Herrmann

M. J.

(2013). The impact of task relevance and degree of distraction on stimulus processing. BMC Neuroscience, 14(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-14-107

11.

Blaha

L. M.

(2017). Comparing capacity coefficient and dual task assessment of visual multitasking workload. In Schmorrow

D. D.

Fidopiastis

C. M.

(Eds.), Augmented cognition. Enhancing cognition and behavior in complex human environments (S. 3–19). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58625-0_1

12.

Carr

T. H.

Dagenbach

(1990). Semantic priming and repetition priming from masked words: Evidence for a center-surround attentional mechanism in perceptual recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(2), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.2.341

13.

Dagenbach

Carr

T. H.

Wilhelmsen

(1989). Task-induced strategies and near-threshold priming: Conscious influences on unconscious perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 412–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90020-X

14.

Folk

C. L.

Remington

R. W.

Johnston

J. C.

(1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030

15.

Garric

Sebaa

Caetta

Perez

Savatovsky

Sergent

Chokron

(2019). Dissociation between objective and subjective perceptual experiences in a population of hemianopic patients: A new form of blindsight? Cortex, 117, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.05.006

16.

Glover

Dixon

(2004). Likelihood ratios: A simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196706

17.

Haase

S. J.

Fisk

G. D.

(2015). Awareness of “invisible” arrows in a metacontrast masking paradigm. The American Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.1.0015

18.

Handschack

Rothkirch

Sterzer

Hesselmann

(2023). No effect of attentional modulation by spatial cueing in a masked numerical priming paradigm using continuous flash suppression (CFS). PeerJ, 11, e14607. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14607

19.

Hesselmann

(2013). Dissecting visual awareness with fMRI. The Neuroscientist, 19(5), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858413485988

20.

Hesselmann

Darcy

Rothkirch

Sterzer

(2018). Investigating masked priming along the “vision-for-perception” and “vision-for-action” dimensions of unconscious processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000420

21.

Hope

(2022). _Rmisc: Ryan Miscellaneous_. R package version 1.5.1 [Software].

22.

Huang

Limke

Kong

(2017). Investigating one-handed and two-handed inter-device interaction. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 42, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2017.07.001

23.

Ivanoff

Klein

R. M.

(2003). Orienting of attention without awareness is affected by measurement-induced attentional control settings. Journal of Vision, 3(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1167/3.1.4

24.

Izatt

Dubois

Faivre

Koch

(2014). A direct comparison of unconscious face processing under masking and interocular suppression. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 659. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00659

25.

Janczyk

Kunde

(2020). Dual tasking from a goal perspective. Psychological Review, 127(6), 1079–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000222

26.

Janczyk

Pfister

Hommel

Kunde

(2014). Who is talking in backward crosstalk? Disentangling response- from goal-conflict in dual-task performance. Cognition, 132(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.001

27.

Jehee

J. F. M.

Brady

D. K.

Tong

(2011). Attention improves encoding of task-relevant features in the human visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(22), 8210–8219. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6153-09.2011

28.

Jimenez

Prieto

Gómez

Hinojosa

J. A.

Montoro

P. R.

(2023). Masked priming under the Bayesian microscope: Exploring the integration of local elements into global shape through Bayesian model comparison. Consciousness and Cognition, 115, 103568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2023.103568

29.

Jimenez

Prieto

Hinojosa

J. A.

Montoro

P. R.

(2025). Consciousness under the spotlight: The problem of measuring subjective experience. WIREs Cognitive Science, 16(1), e1697. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1697

30.

Katus

Eimer

(2019). The sources of dual-task costs in multisensory working memory tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01348

31.

Kiefer

(2019). Cognitive control over unconscious cognition: Flexibility and generalizability of task set influences on subsequent masked semantic priming. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1556–1570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1011-x

32.

Kiefer

Frühauf

Kammer

(2023). Subjective and objective measures of visual awareness converge. PLOS ONE, 18(10), e0292438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292438

33.

Kiefer

Harpaintner

Rohr

Wentura

(2023). Assessing subjective prime awareness on a trial-by-trial basis interferes with masked semantic priming effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001228

34.

Kiefer

Kammer

(2024). The relation between subjective and objective measures of visual awareness: Current evidence, attempt of a synthesis and future research directions. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nxtw4

35.

Kiefer

Martens

(2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 464–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019561

36.

Kiesel

Johannsen

Koch

Müller

(Eds.). (2022). Handbook of Human Multitasking. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04760-2

37.

Klotz

Neumann

(1999). Motor activation without conscious discrimination in metacontrast masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 976–992. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.976

38.

Kraut

A. T. A.

Albrecht

(2022). Neural correlates of temporal integration and segregation in metacontrast masking: A phenomenological study. Psychophysiology, 59(11), e14085. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14085

39.

Lähteenmäki

Hyönä

Koivisto

Nummenmaa

(2015). Affective processing requires awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000040

40.

Lamy

Alon

Carmel

Shalev

(2015). The role of conscious perception in attentional capture and object-file updating. Psychological Science, 26(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614556777

41.

Lamy

Carmel

Peremen

(2017). Prior conscious experience enhances conscious perception but does not affect response priming. Cognition, 160, 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.009

42.

Lamy

Ophir

E. A.

Avneon

(2019). Studying the benefits and costs of conscious perception with the liminal-prime paradigm. In Hesselmann

(Ed.), Transitions between consciousness and unconsciousness (pp. 118–147). Routledge.

43.

Lin

Murray

S. O.

(2014). Priming of awareness or how not to measure visual awareness. Journal of Vision, 14(1), 27–27. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.1.27

44.

Makowski

Ben-Shachar

Lüdecke

(2019). bayestestR: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian Framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40), 1541. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01541

45.

Mattler

(2003). Priming of mental operations by masked stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194793

46.

Morey

R. D.

(2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061

47.

Morey

Rouder

(2024). _BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs (R package version 0.9.12-4.7) [Software].

48.

Naccache

Blandin

Dehaene

(2002). Unconscious masked priming depends on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 13(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00474

49.

Nakagawa

Schielzeth

(2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x

50.

Newell

B. R.

Shanks

D. R.

(2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12003214

51.

Nuiten

S. A.

Canales-Johnson

Beerendonk

Nanuashvili

Fahrenfort

J. J.

Bekinschtein

Van Gaal

(2021). Preserved sensory processing but hampered conflict detection when stimulus input is task-irrelevant. eLife, 10, e64431. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64431

52.

Owen

Kurtenbach

Fitzmaurice

Baudel

Buxton

(2005). When it gets more difficult, use both hands – Exploring bimanual curve manipulation. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2005 (pp. 17–24). Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089508.1089512

53.

Pashler

(1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220

54.

Peremen

Lamy

(2014). Do conscious perception and unconscious processing rely on independent mechanisms? A meta-contrast study. Consciousness and Cognition, 24, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.12.006

55.

Persuh

(2018). Measuring perceptual consciousness. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02320

56.

Peters

M. A. K.

Lau

(2015). Human observers have optimal introspective access to perceptual processes even for visually masked stimuli. eLife, 4, e09651. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09651

57.

Pratte

M. S.

Rouder

J. N.

(2009). A task-difficulty artifact in subliminal priming. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.3758/app.71.6.1276

58.

Ramsøy

T. Z.

Overgaard

(2004). Introspection and subliminal perception. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000041900.30172.e8

59.

R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

60.

Rogers

R. D.

Monsell

(1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207

61.

Rothkirch

Hesselmann

(2017). What we talk about when we talk about unconscious processing – A plea for best practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 835. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00835

62.

Rouder

J. N.

Morey

R. D.

Speckman

P. L.

Province

J. M.

(2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001

63.

Sandberg

Bibby

B. M.

Timmermans

Cleeremans

Overgaard

(2011). Measuring consciousness: Task accuracy and awareness as sigmoid functions of stimulus duration. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1659–1675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.002

64.

Sandberg

Overgaard

(2015). Using the perceptual awareness scale (PAS). In Overgaard

(Eds.), Behavioral methods in consciousness research (pp. 181–196). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688890.003.0011

65.

Scerra

V. E.

Brill

J. C.

(2012). Effect of task modality on dual-task performance, response time, and ratings of operator workload. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1456–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561409

66.

Schacherer

Hazeltine

(2021). Crosstalk, not resource competition, as a source of dual-task costs: Evidence from manipulating stimulus-action effect conceptual compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(4), 1224–1232. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01903-2

67.

Schlaghecken

Eimer

(2000). A central-peripheral asymmetry in masked priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(7), 1367–1382. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212139

68.

Schmidt

Haberkamp

Veltkamp

G. M.

Weber

Seydell-Greenwald

Schmidt

(2011). Visual processing in rapid-chase systems: Image processing, attention, and awareness. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00169

69.

Schmidt

Biafora

(2024). A theory of visibility measures in the dissociation paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02332-z

70.

Sigman

Dehaene

(2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4(7), e220. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040220

71.

Stein

Kaiser

Fahrenfort

J. J.

van Gaal

(2021). The human visual system differentially represents subjectively and objectively invisible stimuli. PLOS Biology, 19(5), e3001241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001241

72.

Strasburger

Rentschler

Jüttner

(2011). Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: A review. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 13. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.13

73.

Strobach

(2024). Cognitive control and meta-control in dual-task coordination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(4), 1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02427-7

74.

Strobach

Hendrich

Kübler

Müller

Schubert

(2018). Processing order in dual-task situations: The “first-come, first-served” principle and the impact of task order instructions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1785–1803. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1541-8

75.

Theeuwes

Godijn

(2002). Irrelevant singletons capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(5), 764–770. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194743

76.

Tombu

Jolicœur

(2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3

77.

Wan

Wang

Jou

Liu

(2023). A target sequential effect on the forced-choice prime visibility test in unconscious priming studies: A caveat for researchers. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 11(1), 6–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jpbs.v11n1a2

78.

Watter

Logan . (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 254–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193674

79.

Wendt

Hesselmann

(2025). In the hands of metacontrast: Investigating the dual-task structure of an unconscious priming paradigm. Consciousness and Cognition, 133, 103900.

80.

Wentura

Rohr

Kiefer

(2024). Does affective processing require awareness? On the use of the Perceptual Awareness Scale in response priming research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 154(1), 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001648

81.

Wetzels

Matzke

Lee

M. D.

Rouder

J. N.

Iverson

G. J.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t tests. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406923

82.

Zanto

T. P.

Gazzaley

(2009). Neural suppression of irrelevant information underlies optimal working memory performance. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3059–3066. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4621-08.2009

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.

0.00 MB

1.54 MB