Different time courses for visual perception and action priming

Abstract

Visual stimuli may remain invisible but nevertheless produce strong and reliable effects on subsequent actions. How well features of a masked prime are perceived depends crucially on its physical parameters and those of the mask. We manipulated the visibility of masked stimuli and contrasted it with their influence on the speed of motor actions, comparing the temporal dynamics of visual awareness in metacontrast masking with that of action priming under the same conditions. We observed priming with identical time course for reportable and invisible prime stimuli, despite qualitative changes in the masking time course. Our findings indicate that experimental variations that modify the subjective visual experience of masked stimuli have no effect on motor effects of those stimuli in early processing. We propose a model that provides a quantitative account of priming effects on response speed and accuracy.

Influences of unconscious priming on voluntary actions: Role of the rostral cingulate zone

“…This also optimizes the conditions for recognition performance as speed stress could lead to reduced response accuracy (Vorberg et al, 2003). A visual cue ('*') signaled when they were allowed to respond.…”

“…In the present study we try to extend these findings by investigating how subliminally presented information might influence activation in the choice network with a particular focus on RCZ. The experimental paradigm was based on that of Vorberg et al (2003). In the original paradigm, choices are always explicitly cued, in the sense that participants have to respond either with the right or the left hand to right or left pointing target arrows respectively.…”

“…In the original paradigm, choices are always explicitly cued, in the sense that participants have to respond either with the right or the left hand to right or left pointing target arrows respectively. Before the target arrows, prime arrows are subliminally presented resulting in slower response times and more errors on incompatible trials, when the direction of the prime goes against the direction of the target (Vorberg et al, 2003). For the current study we adapted the paradigm following Wenke et al (2010).…”

“…The metacontrast masks were embedded within target arrows that pointed left or right in cued-choice trials, or in both directions simultaneously in free-choice trials. Primes subtended visual angles of 0.8° x 1.86°, and the targets of 1.09° x 3.47° (Vorberg et al, 2003). Prime and target stimuli could appear randomly above or below a fixation cross at a visual angle of 1.38°.…”

“…Prime and target stimuli could appear randomly above or below a fixation cross at a visual angle of 1.38°. The unpredictable location was reported to enhance the masking effect (Vorberg et al, 2003).…”