Valid distinctions between conscious and unconscious perception?

Haase, Steven J.; Fisk, Gary D.

doi:10.3758/bf03194979

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Implications for the null sensitivity problem. The usual concern, reiterated by Reingold (2004) and Haase and Fisk (2004), is that true detection sensitivity may actually exceed zero even when obtained sensitivity is zero due to intrinsic measurement error. Given its enhanced power, the current meta-analysis reduces this concern considerably: In translated PC units, the 95% CI ϭ 49.62% -51.10%, quite a narrow range.…”

Section: Conscious Perception Index Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We thank Haase and Fisk (2004), Reingold (2004), and Holender and Duscherer (2004) for their thoughtful commentaries, which, along with our target article, reflect very different positions. On the one hand, Holender and Duscherer are convinced that unconscious perception does not exist, and favor the single-process conscious perception model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, Holender and Duscherer are convinced that unconscious perception does not exist, and favor the single-process conscious perception model. Haase and Fisk (2004) are also skeptical, though more neutral. Nonetheless, these commentaries agree that the objective threshold/strategic model (Snodgrass, Bernat, & Shevrin, 2004) is superior to the subjective threshold (e.g., Merikle & Daneman, 1998) and objective threshold/ rapid decay (e.g., Draine & Greenwald, 1998) models, and that it ultimately may be capable of demonstrating unconscious perception.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Unconscious perception at the objective detection threshold exists

Snodgrass

Bernat

Shevrin

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does unconscious perception at the objective detection threshold (ODT) exist? In this reply, formal meta-analyses of previously narratively reviewed evidence (Snodgrass, Bernat, & Shevrin, 2004) provide strong evidence for large, reliable unconscious perceptual effects, and further strengthen previous conclusions for their ODT status. These meta-analyses dispel general concerns that ODT effects are small, unreliable, or susceptible to file drawer concerns (cf. Reingold, 2004). Furthermore, the specific objections (Holender & Duscherer, 2004) to individual ODT effects are refuted, and objections to our proposed solutions to the exhaustiveness, exclusiveness, and null sensitivity problems (Haase & Fisk, 2004; Reingold, 2004) are shown to be inapplicable, contradicted by the available evidence, or both. Accordingly, the strong evidence for ODT effects, taken together with the nonmonotonic relationship, contradicts the single-process conscious perception model (e.g., Holender & Duscherer, 2004) and provides stronger evidence for unconscious perception than hitherto available. This research was undertaken as part of a research program on conscious and unconscious processes in the Ormond and Hazel Hunt Memorial Laboratory, directed by H.S. and supported by gifts from Robert Berry and the Smart Family Foundation. Special thanks to Mark Van Selst and Philip Merikle for making their raw data available. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M.

show abstract

Section: Conscious Perception Index Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unconscious perception at the objective detection threshold exists

Snodgrass

Bernat

Shevrin

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Otherwise, there is no reason not to consider positive values of d′ as large as ϩ1.0 as reflecting measurement error as well. At least the largest values of the negative d′ should represent incorrect discriminative responding (see Haase & Fisk, 2004). Thus, it is far from clear that the pattern of results observed in Figure 4 and in the right panel of Figure 6 in Snodgrass et al (2004) could be interpreted in the same way as one can interpret the nonmonotonic relation between priming and SOA length in Dagenbach, Carr, and Wilhelmsen's (1989) study.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 87%

Unconscious perception: The need for a paradigm shift

Holender

Duscherer

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As in previous studies using visual materials (Haase and Fisk, 2004; Holender and Duscherer, 2004; Reingold, 2004; Snodgrass et al, 2004a,b; Fisk and Haase, 2005), dissociation between detection and recognition was analyzed using a subjective threshold approach (e.g., Merikle and Cheesman, 1986) and an objective threshold approach (e.g., Greenwald et al, 1995). The subjective threshold approach supposes a dissociation between detection and recognition such that under stimulus conditions where the participants do not report awareness of the stimuli, they can nevertheless perform above chance on the perceptual discrimination tasks (e.g., Cheesman and Merikle, 1984, 1986; Merikle and Cheesman, 1986).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitated Auditory Detection for Speech Sounds

Signoret¹,

Gaudrain²,

Tillmann³

et al. 2011

Front. Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If it is well known that knowledge facilitates higher cognitive functions, such as visual and auditory word recognition, little is known about the influence of knowledge on detection, particularly in the auditory modality. Our study tested the influence of phonological and lexical knowledge on auditory detection. Words, pseudo-words, and complex non-phonological sounds, energetically matched as closely as possible, were presented at a range of presentation levels from sub-threshold to clearly audible. The participants performed a detection task (Experiments 1 and 2) that was followed by a two alternative forced-choice recognition task in Experiment 2. The results of this second task in Experiment 2 suggest a correct recognition of words in the absence of detection with a subjective threshold approach. In the detection task of both experiments, phonological stimuli (words and pseudo-words) were better detected than non-phonological stimuli (complex sounds), presented close to the auditory threshold. This finding suggests an advantage of speech for signal detection. An additional advantage of words over pseudo-words was observed in Experiment 2, suggesting that lexical knowledge could also improve auditory detection when listeners had to recognize the stimulus in a subsequent task. Two simulations of detection performance performed on the sound signals confirmed that the advantage of speech over non-speech processing could not be attributed to energetic differences in the stimuli.

show abstract

Valid distinctions between conscious and unconscious perception?

Abstract: In this commentary, we discuss the strengths and limitations of Snodgrass, Bernat, and Shevrin's (2004)

Cited by 12 publications

References 27 publications

Unconscious perception at the objective detection threshold exists

Unconscious perception at the objective detection threshold exists

Unconscious perception: The need for a paradigm shift

Facilitated Auditory Detection for Speech Sounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About