2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The semantic origin of unconscious priming: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence during category congruency priming from strongly and weakly related masked words

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

6
47
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
(143 reference statements)
6
47
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In conclusion, our findings provide evidence that emotional words can be processed even when the stimuli are rendered invisible, which may contribute to the ongoing debate (Zimba and Blake, 1983; Dehaene et al, 2006; Jiang et al, 2007; Hesselmann et al, 2015; Ortells et al, 2016). Furthermore, emotional information is more sensitive to unconscious processing than semantic information; a semantic effect weakly occurs only in the absence of awareness.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In conclusion, our findings provide evidence that emotional words can be processed even when the stimuli are rendered invisible, which may contribute to the ongoing debate (Zimba and Blake, 1983; Dehaene et al, 2006; Jiang et al, 2007; Hesselmann et al, 2015; Ortells et al, 2016). Furthermore, emotional information is more sensitive to unconscious processing than semantic information; a semantic effect weakly occurs only in the absence of awareness.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…Firstly, there are conflicting findings for unconscious semantic processing. Some studies have reported the semantic processing of word stimuli in the unconscious conditions (Dehaene et al, 2006; Jiang et al, 2007; Wang and Yuan, 2008; Sklar et al, 2012; Ortells et al, 2016). However, other studies have provided the opposite evidence that the semantic processing of verbal stimuli cannot occur when they are rendered invisibly (Zimba and Blake, 1983; Kang et al, 2011; Heyman and Moors, 2014; Hesselmann et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, this attentional and task-dependent account has been questioned by findings from a number of psycholinguistic studies that reported phonological and semantic effects in visual word recognition even when these representations were totally irrelevant to the task or not directly accessible (Rodd, 2004;Tanenhaus et al, 1980;Ziegler and Jacobs, 1995), thus supporting the claim of an automatic and possibly mandatory access to phonology and meaning during reading (Frost, 1998). Similarly, masked priming studies showed that shared phonological and semantic representations between a prime and a target affect recognition of the target even in the absence of prime awareness, which makes the strategic activation of these representations unlikely (Brysbaert, 2001;Brysbaert et al, 1999;Deacon et al, 2000;Drieghe and Brysbaert, 2002;Ferrand and Grainger, 1994;Kiefer and Spitzer, 2000;Lukatela and Turvey, 1994;Ortells et al, 2016;Wheat et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…This similarity suggests that masked pictorial evaluative priming with highly repeated targets, which are also presented as primes, seems to rely on similar S-R activation processes as shape priming. However, compatible with demonstrations of a privileged access of pictures to semantics (Glaser, 1992; Spruyt et al , 2002), pictorial priming by unfamiliar primes, which require an at least coarse semantic analyses as basis for task set execution (Kiefer et al , 2015), might rely on semantic processing and elicit an N400 (see also, Ortells et al , 2016). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%