Windows of Integration Hypothesis Revisited

Abstract

In the ongoing research of the functions of consciousness, special emphasis has been put on integration of information: the ability to combine different signals into a coherent, unified one. Several theories of consciousness hold that this ability depends on – or at least goes hand in hand with – conscious processing. Yet some empirical findings have suggested otherwise, claiming that integration of information could take place even without awareness. Trying to reconcile this apparent contradiction, the “windows of integration” (WOI) hypothesis claims that conscious access enables signal processing over large integration windows. The hypothesis applies to integration windows defined either temporally, spatially, or semantically. In this review, we explain the hypothesis and re-examine it in light of new studies published since it was suggested. In line with the hypothesis, these studies provide compelling evidence for unconscious integration, but also demonstrate its limits with respect to time, space, and semantic distance. The review further highlights open questions that still need to be pursued to demonstrate the applicability of the WOI hypothesis as a guiding principle for understanding the depth and scope of unconscious processes.

How do multiple masked relevant prime stimuli affect a conscious response: Two prime arrows produce independent priming effects on the target response

“…Recently, based on a large amount of evidence of unconscious processing (Bruno et al, 2020;Chen et al, 2020;Eriksson et al, 2020;Soto et al, 2019), it has been found that multiple subliminal stimuli can integrate with each other. This nding greatly advanced the understanding of unconscious information processing and integration (Hirschhorn et al, 2021;Tu et al, 2020;Van Opstal, 2021;Wang et al, 2017).…”

To Grasp the World at a Glance: The Role of Attention in Visual and Semantic Associative Processing

“…According to an opposing dominant view, however, it is contextually inconsistent stimuli that actually benefit from increased access to awareness and therefore may exert influence on performance earlier than consistent stimuli when presented unconsciously [80] (see also [81,82]). These findings, though, were recently questioned by studies failing to replicate them, forming a relative consensus according to which there is essentially no or very limited integrative (associative) processing under unconscious conditions [83][84][85][86].…”

Unconscious integration: Current evidence for integrative processing under subliminal conditions

“…Theories such as unconscious inference can be traced back to Ibn al‐Haytham centuries ago (Allik & Konstabel, 2005), while laboratory studies of unconscious processing were already reported in the 1800s (Peirce & Jastrow, 1884; Suslowa, 1863). The scope and limit of unconscious processing, however, are still debated to this day (Goldstein & Hassin, 2017; Hassin, 2013; Hesselmann & Moors, 2015; Hirschhorn et al, 2021; Kouider & Faivre, 2017; Mudrik et al, 2014; Mudrik & Deouell, 2022; Rothkirch et al, 2018).…”

“…Whereas higher‐level integration requires some kind of comparison (i.e. judging the relationship between two or more elements), which has also been described as ‘relational processing’ (Hirschhorn et al, 2021; Zucker & Mudrik, 2019). Examples include the representation of the number ‘5’ formed by comparing ‘3’ and ‘2’, or the concept of similarity/difference formed by comparing two stimuli (e.g.…”