In Search of an Integrative Method to Study Unconscious Processing: An Application of Bayesian and General Recognition Theory Models to the Processing of Hierarchical Patterns in the Absence of Awareness.

Antonio Prieto, Pedro R Montoro, Mikel Jimenez, José Antonio Hinojosa
Author Information
  1. Antonio Prieto: Departamento de Psicología Básica I, UNED, Spain. ORCID
  2. Pedro R Montoro: Departamento de Psicología Básica I, UNED, Spain. ORCID
  3. Mikel Jimenez: Department of Psychology, University of Durham, Durham, United Kingdom. ORCID
  4. José Antonio Hinojosa: Instituto Pluridisciplinar, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. ORCID

Abstract

The dissociation between conscious and unconscious perception is one of the most relevant issues in the study of human cognition. While there is evidence suggesting that some stimuli might be unconsciously processed up to its meaning (e.g., high-level stimulus processing), some authors claim that most results on the processing of subliminal stimuli can be explained by a mixture of methodological artefacts and questionable assumptions about what can be considered non-conscious. Particularly, one of the most controversial topics involves the method by which the awareness of the stimuli is assessed. To address this question, we introduced an integrative approach to assess the extent to which masked hierarchical stimuli (i.e., global shapes composed of local elements) can be processed in the absence of awareness. We combined a priming task where participants had to report global or local shapes, with the use of subjective and objective awareness measures collected either in a separate block (offline), or trial-by-trial during the main task (online). The unconscious processing of the masked primes was then evaluated through two different novel model-based methods: a Bayesian and a General Recognition Theory modeling approach. Despite the high correlation between awareness measures, our results show that the use of alternative approaches based on different theoretical assumptions leads to diverging conclusions about the extent of the unconscious processing of the masked primes.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Jun;24(3):752-775 [PMID: 27753047]
  2. Conscious Cogn. 2018 Mar;59:87-103 [PMID: 29329968]
  3. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 May;10(5):204-11 [PMID: 16603406]
  4. Conscious Cogn. 2010 Dec;19(4):1069-78 [PMID: 20133167]
  5. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1995 Mar;124(1):22-42 [PMID: 7897340]
  6. Span J Psychol. 2018 Oct 25;21:E42 [PMID: 30355374]
  7. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Aug;14(4):597-605 [PMID: 17972720]
  8. Conscious Cogn. 2001 Sep;10(3):294-340 [PMID: 11697867]
  9. Behav Brain Sci. 2007 Dec;30(5-6):481-99; discussion 499-548 [PMID: 18366828]
  10. Behav Brain Sci. 2014 Feb;37(1):1-19 [PMID: 24461214]
  11. Front Psychol. 2018 Jan 09;8:2320 [PMID: 29375438]
  12. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Apr;144(2):339-65 [PMID: 25559654]
  13. Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):416-24 [PMID: 12219807]
  14. Prog Brain Res. 2009;176:15-33 [PMID: 19733747]
  15. Percept Psychophys. 2005 May;67(4):606-23 [PMID: 16134455]
  16. Psychon Bull Rev. 2022 Feb;29(1):21-43 [PMID: 34131891]
  17. J Neurophysiol. 2009 Apr;101(4):2186-93 [PMID: 19129297]
  18. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Sep;18(9):488-96 [PMID: 24933626]
  19. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Feb;144(1):e1-15 [PMID: 25621378]
  20. Conscious Cogn. 2017 Aug;53:31-46 [PMID: 28618282]
  21. Percept Psychophys. 2006 Jan;68(1):17-31 [PMID: 16617826]
  22. Front Psychol. 2017 May 23;8:835 [PMID: 28588539]
  23. Conscious Cogn. 2015 Sep;35:234-50 [PMID: 25704454]
  24. Nature. 1981 Mar 12;290(5802):91-7 [PMID: 7207603]
  25. Conscious Cogn. 2015 Mar;32:68-78 [PMID: 25307748]
  26. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Aug;12(8):314-21 [PMID: 18606562]
  27. Psychon Bull Rev. 2024 Feb;31(1):49-64 [PMID: 37528278]
  28. Conscious Cogn. 2007 Dec;16(4):785-96 [PMID: 17276086]
  29. Percept Psychophys. 1984 Oct;36(4):387-95 [PMID: 6522236]
  30. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Feb;3(2):104-107 [PMID: 30944453]
  31. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Nov;118:568-587 [PMID: 32783969]
  32. Psychol Sci. 2004 Nov;15(11):720-8 [PMID: 15482443]
  33. Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Apr;30(2):553-563 [PMID: 36163609]
  34. Psychol Sci. 2020 Jun;31(6):663-677 [PMID: 32384011]
  35. Psychol Res. 2011 Sep;75(5):351-65 [PMID: 21052714]
  36. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2016 Apr;78(3):902-14 [PMID: 26704563]
  37. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Feb;16(2):103-5 [PMID: 22154091]
  38. Psychol Methods. 2017 Jun;22(2):322-339 [PMID: 26651986]
  39. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Sep;127(3):318-9 [PMID: 9742719]
  40. Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1215-23 [PMID: 15050549]
  41. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2010 Jan;1(1):51-59 [PMID: 26272838]
  42. Exp Psychol. 2022 Jan;69(1):1-11 [PMID: 35272479]
  43. Conscious Cogn. 2020 Oct;85:103022 [PMID: 32950722]
  44. Conscious Cogn. 2023 Oct;115:103568 [PMID: 37708623]
  45. Psychol Bull. 2012 Nov;138(6):1172-217 [PMID: 22845751]
  46. PLoS One. 2023 Oct 3;18(10):e0292438 [PMID: 37788260]
  47. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Feb;83(2):558-576 [PMID: 33034851]
  48. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Nov 18;7:769 [PMID: 24339806]
  49. Curr Biol. 2006 Dec 5;16(23):2332-6 [PMID: 17141615]
  50. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2010 Mar;16(2):383-7 [PMID: 19958569]
  51. Cognition. 2020 Dec;205:104442 [PMID: 32889226]
  52. Psychol Bull. 2012 Nov;138(6):1218-52 [PMID: 22845750]
  53. Exp Psychol. 2021 May;68(3):113-129 [PMID: 34435511]
  54. J Vis. 2007 Mar 27;7(4):10 [PMID: 17461694]
  55. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):35-57 [PMID: 28779455]
  56. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2025 Jan-Feb;16(1):e1697 [PMID: 39449331]
  57. Cognition. 2001 Apr;79(1-2):115-34 [PMID: 11164025]
  58. Neuropsychologia. 2018 Dec;121:144-152 [PMID: 30408463]
  59. Conscious Cogn. 2010 Jun;19(2):682-4; discussion 685-6 [PMID: 20097582]
  60. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jan;7(1):12-18 [PMID: 12517353]
  61. Front Psychol. 2017 May 23;8:696 [PMID: 28588513]
  62. Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):422-30 [PMID: 22071269]
  63. Front Psychol. 2020 Feb 14;11:83 [PMID: 32116908]
  64. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2023 Feb;49(2):269-283 [PMID: 36996189]
  65. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2022 Jul;23(7):439-452 [PMID: 35505255]
  66. Conscious Cogn. 2016 Aug;44:29-40 [PMID: 27351780]
  67. J Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Jun 1;33(7):1295-1310 [PMID: 34496396]
  68. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 May 3;119(18):e2116933119 [PMID: 35486693]
  69. Psychol Rev. 1960 Sep;67:279-300 [PMID: 13697142]
  70. Prog Brain Res. 2008;168:35-48 [PMID: 18166384]
  71. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Jan;11(1):16-22 [PMID: 17129748]
  72. J Cogn. 2018 Jan 12;1(1):9 [PMID: 31517183]
  73. Psychol Bull. 1968 Dec;70(6):404-25 [PMID: 4889566]
  74. Conscious Cogn. 2014 Apr;25:1-8 [PMID: 24518805]
  75. Percept Psychophys. 1988 Dec;44(6):563-75 [PMID: 3200674]
  76. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Apr;21(2):301-8 [PMID: 24659049]
  77. Curr Biol. 2011 Nov 22;21(22):R912-3 [PMID: 22115455]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0awarenessstimuliprocessingunconsciouscanmaskedmeasuresBayesianGeneralperceptiononeprocessederesultsassumptionsapproachextentglobalshapeslocaltaskuseprimesdifferentRecognitionTheoryUnconsciousAwarenessVisualdissociationconsciousrelevantissuesstudyhumancognitionevidencesuggestingmightunconsciouslymeaningghigh-levelstimulusauthorsclaimsubliminalexplainedmixturemethodologicalartefactsquestionableconsiderednon-consciousParticularlycontroversialtopicsinvolvesmethodassessedaddressquestionintroducedintegrativeassesshierarchicalicomposedelementsabsencecombinedprimingparticipantsreportsubjectiveobjectivecollectedeitherseparateblockofflinetrial-by-trialmainonlineevaluatedtwonovelmodel-basedmethods:modelingDespitehighcorrelationshowalternativeapproachesbasedtheoreticalleadsdivergingconclusionsSearchIntegrativeMethodStudyProcessing:ApplicationModelsProcessingHierarchicalPatternsAbsenceinferencerecognitiontheorymasking

Similar Articles

Cited By