Semantic activation without conscious identification: Can progress be made?

Abstract

Continuing CommentaryCommentary on Daniel Holender (1986) Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual masking: A survey and appraisal. BBS 9:1-66.Abstract of the original article: When the stored representation of the meaning of a stimulus is accessed through the processing of a sensory input it is maintained in an activated state for a certain amount of time that allows for further processing. This semantic activation is generally accompanied by conscious identification, which can be demonstrated by the ability of a person to perform discriminations on the basis of the meaning of the stimulus. The idea that a sensory input can give rise to semantic activation without concomitant conscious identification was the central thesis of the controversial research in subliminal perception. Recently, new claims for the existence of such phenomena have arisen from studies in dichotic listening, parafoveal vision, and visual pattern masking. Because of the fundamental role played by these types of experiments in cognitive psychology, the new assertions have raised widespread interest. The purpose of this paper is to show that this enthusiasm may be premature. Analysis of the three new lines of evidence for semantic activation without conscious identification leads to the following conclusions. (1) Dichotic listening cannot provide the conditions needed to demonstrate the phenomenon. These conditions are better fulfilled in parafoveal vision and are realized ideally in pattern masking. (2) Evidence for the phenomenon is very scanty for parafoveal vision, but several tentative demonstrations have been reported for pattern masking. It can be shown, however, that none of these-studies has included the requisite controls to ensure that semantic activation was not accompanied by conscious identification of the stimulus at the time of presentation. (3) On the basis of current evidence it is most likely that these stimuli were indeed consciously identified.

Dissociating Prelexical and Postlexical Processing of Affective Information in the Two Hemispheres: Effects of the Stimulus Presentation Format

“…4 This conclusion is in conflict with prior work attributing the higher affective sensitivity of the right hemisphere to unconscious and prelexical processes (Dawson & Schell, 1982;Làva-das et al, 1993;Wexler et al, 1992). However, these studies cannot be compared directly with the current one because they employed masking or subliminal stimulation paradigms, procedures that have long been questioned and that have been replaced by process dissociation procedures in the more recent literature (Debner & Jacoby, 1994;Greenwald et al, 1996;Holender, 1986;Reingold & Merikle, 1993).…”

“…Because this bias is independent of accurate performance (Snodgrass & Corwin, 1988, p. 47), as confirmed by our correlational analyses, we think that this phenomenon demonstrates semantic activation in the absence of (conscious) stimulus identification in both hemispheres (cf. Greenwald et al, 1996;Holender, 1986;Windmann & Krüger, 1998;Zajonc, 1980). When presented in a nonoverlearned perceptual format, stimuli evaluated as potentially negative during this early processing are then lexically analyzed equally well by both hemispheres (as indicated by the symmetric P r values for negative items), whereas items without this emotional connotation are analyzed more accurately by the verbally skilled left hemisphere than by the right hemisphere.…”

“…On the other hand, some researchers have in fact reported brain asymmetries in the processing of emotional words that were presented below the subjective identification threshold (Làvadas, Cimatti, Del Pesce, & Tuozzi, 1993;Wexler, Warrenburg, Schwartz, & Janer, 1992). However, methodological problems associated with subliminal stimulation (Holender, 1986;Reingold & Merikle, 1993) and subjective (as opposed to objective) identification thresholds (Cheesman & Merikle, 1986) prohibit any firm conclusions being drawn from these findings.…”

Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry

“…From other work, it is known that binocular rivalry is not experienced at durations this brief (Anderson, Bechtoldt, & Dunlap, 1978;Goldstein, 1970). Hence, instead of studying binocular rivalry, Rommetveit may have been measuring the effects of semantic priming on dichoptic masking (e.g., Holender, 1986). It would be informative to perform a version of Rommetveit's experiment in which the pair of rival targets are viewed for an extended period of time.…”

Event-related potential indicators of the dynamic unconscious

“…Shortly thereafter, Dixon in England followed Fisher's lead (Dixon, 1956(Dixon, , 1958a, as did researchers at the Research Center for Mental Health at New York University (Klein, Spence, Holt, & Gourevitch 1958;Klein & Holt, 1960;Eagle, 1959;Eagle, Wolitzky, & Klein, 1966;Pine, 1960Pine, , 1961Spence, 1961Spence, , 1964 and researchers at the Menninger Foundation (Luborsky & Shevrin, 1956;Shevrin & Luborsky, 1958;Stross & Shevrin, 1962. These early studies were criticized by behaviorists such as Goldiamond (1958) and Eriksen (1960) on some of the same methodological grounds as Holender (1986) has more recently revived. Erdelyi (1974) and Bowers (1984), among others, have responded to critiques of this nature.…”