Disentangling conscious and unconscious processing: a subjective trial-based assessment approach - PubMed (original) (raw)

Disentangling conscious and unconscious processing: a subjective trial-based assessment approach

Eva Van den Bussche et al. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013.

Abstract

The most common method for assessing similarities and differences between conscious and unconscious processing is to compare the effects of unconscious (perceptually weak) stimuli, with conscious (perceptually strong) stimuli. Awareness of these stimuli is then assessed by objective performance on prime identification tasks. While this approach has proven extremely fruitful in furthering our understanding of unconscious cognition, it also suffers from some critical problems. We present an alternative methodology for comparing conscious and unconscious cognition. We used a priming version of a Stroop paradigm and after each trial, participants gave a subjective rating of the degree to which they were aware of the prime. Based on this trial-by-trial awareness assessment, conscious, uncertain, and unconscious trials were separated. Crucially, in all these conditions, the primes have identical perceptual strength. Significant priming was observed for all conditions, but the effects for conscious trials were significantly stronger, and no difference was observed between uncertain and unconscious trials. Thus, awareness of the prime has a large impact on congruency effects, even when signal strength is controlled for.

Keywords: awareness assessment; conscious processing; prime awareness; stimulus strength; unconscious processing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1

Example of a congruent trial.

Similar articles

• Comparing unconscious processing during continuous flash suppression and meta-contrast masking just under the limen of consciousness.
  Peremen Z, Lamy D. Peremen Z, et al. Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 11;5:969. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00969. eCollection 2014. Front Psychol. 2014. PMID: 25309469 Free PMC article.
• Unconscious response priming during continuous flash suppression.
  Koivisto M, Grassini S. Koivisto M, et al. PLoS One. 2018 Feb 5;13(2):e0192201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192201. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 29401503 Free PMC article.
• Reexamining unconscious response priming: A liminal-prime paradigm.
  Avneon M, Lamy D. Avneon M, et al. Conscious Cogn. 2018 Mar;59:87-103. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.12.006. Epub 2018 Jan 10. Conscious Cogn. 2018. PMID: 29329968
• Unconscious vision and executive control: how unconscious processing and conscious action control interact.
  Ansorge U, Kunde W, Kiefer M. Ansorge U, et al. Conscious Cogn. 2014 Jul;27:268-87. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.05.009. Epub 2014 Jun 22. Conscious Cogn. 2014. PMID: 24960432 Review.
• Disentangling conscious from unconscious cognitive processing with event-related EEG potentials.
  Rohaut B, Naccache L. Rohaut B, et al. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2017 Jul-Aug;173(7-8):521-528. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2017.08.001. Epub 2017 Aug 24. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2017. PMID: 28843414 Review.

Cited by

• Applying Linear Mixed Effects Models (LMMs) in Within-Participant Designs With Subjective Trial-Based Assessments of Awareness-a Caveat.
  Hesselmann G. Hesselmann G. Front Psychol. 2018 May 25;9:788. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00788. eCollection 2018. Front Psychol. 2018. PMID: 29887820 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Invisible Stimuli, Implicit Thresholds: Why Invisibility Judgments Cannot be Interpreted in Isolation.
  Schmidt T. Schmidt T. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2015 Jun 30;11(2):31-41. doi: 10.5709/acp-0169-3. eCollection 2015. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2015. PMID: 26203311 Free PMC article.
• Reversed Priming Effects May Be Driven by Misperception Rather than Subliminal Processing.
  Sand A. Sand A. Front Psychol. 2016 Feb 19;7:198. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00198. eCollection 2016. Front Psychol. 2016. PMID: 26925016 Free PMC article.
• The Hitchhiker's Guide to Neurophenomenology - The Case of Studying Self Boundaries With Meditators.
  Berkovich-Ohana A, Dor-Ziderman Y, Trautwein FM, Schweitzer Y, Nave O, Fulder S, Ataria Y. Berkovich-Ohana A, et al. Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 21;11:1680. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01680. eCollection 2020. Front Psychol. 2020. PMID: 32793056 Free PMC article.
• Minimal interplay between explicit knowledge, dynamics of learning and temporal expectations in different, complex uni- and multisensory contexts.
  Ball F, Spuerck I, Noesselt T. Ball F, et al. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Aug;83(6):2551-2573. doi: 10.3758/s13414-021-02313-1. Epub 2021 May 11. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021. PMID: 33977407 Free PMC article.

References

1. 1. Amihai I. (2012). Problems in using d′ measures to assess subjective awareness. Iperception 3 783–78510.1068/i0563ic - DOI - PMC - PubMed
2. 1. Ansorge U., Fuchs I., Khalid S., Kunde W. (2011). No conflict control in the absence of awareness. Psycholog. Res. 75 351–36510.1007/s00426-010-0313-4 - DOI - PubMed
3. 1. Björkman M., Juslin P., Winman A. (1993). Realism of confidence in sensory discrimination: the underconfidence phenomenon. Percept. Psychophys. 54 75–8110.3758/BF03206939 - DOI - PubMed
4. 1. Busch N. A., Dubois J., VanRullen R. (2009). The phase of ongoing EEG oscillations predicts visual perception. J. Neurosci. 29 7869–787610.1523/JNEUROSCI.0113-09.2009 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
5. 1. Cheesman J., Merikle P. M. (1984). Priming with and without awareness. Percept. Psychophys. 36 387–39510.3758/BF03202793 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Europe PubMed Central
  • Frontiers Media SA
  • PubMed Central

• Other Literature Sources

  • scite Smart Citations