Cited by 122Sport Psychology and PerformanceVisual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and Perception

Playing chess unconsciously.

Kiesel, Andrea, Kunde, Wilfried, Pohl, Carsten, Berner, Michael P., Hoffmann, Joachim·2009·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Abstract

Expertise in a certain stimulus domain enhances perceptual capabilities. In the present article, the authors investigate whether expertise improves perceptual processing to an extent that allows complex visual stimuli to bias behavior unconsciously. Expert chess players judged whether a target chess configuration entailed a checking configuration. These displays were preceded by masked prime configurations that either represented a checking or a nonchecking configuration. Chess experts, but not novice chess players, revealed a subliminal response priming effect, that is, faster responding when prime and target displays were congruent (both checking or both nonchecking) rather than incongruent. Priming generalized to displays that were not used as targets, ruling out simple repetition priming effects. Thus, chess experts were able to judge unconsciously presented chess configurations as checking or nonchecking. A 2nd experiment demonstrated that experts' priming does not occur for simpler but uncommon chess configurations. The authors conclude that long-term practice prompts the acquisition of visual memories of chess configurations with integrated form-location conjunctions. These perceptual chunks enable complex visual processing outside of conscious awareness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0014499

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Expert chess players can analyse chess situations without consciousness.

    “and expert chess players can analyse chess situations without consciousness (Kiesel et al., 2009).”

    From Hard criteria for empirical theories of consciousness (2021) · cites this paper as Kiesel et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Pohl, C., Berner, M. P., & Hoffmann, J.
Affiliations
University of Würzburg (DE)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Published
2009
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
292-298
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
OpenAlex
W2169505082
Cited by
120
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
12.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HO 1301/10-1; KI 1388/1-2; Ku 1964/1-1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
chess expertise, unconscious priming, subliminal perception, visual memory, perceptual expertise, long-term practice
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Discrimination, Psychological, Humans, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Play and Playthings, Professional Competence, Reaction Time, Unconscious, Psychology, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review