CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 450Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

Different time courses for visual perception and action priming

Open access
Vorberg, Dirk, Mattler, Uwe, Heinecke, Armin, Schmidt, Thomas, Schwarzbach, Jens·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0931489100PMC PMC156362
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Visual stimuli may remain invisible but nevertheless produce strong and reliable effects on subsequent actions. How well features of a masked prime are perceived depends crucially on its physical parameters and those of the mask. We manipulated the visibility of masked stimuli and contrasted it with their influence on the speed of motor actions, comparing the temporal dynamics of visual awareness in metacontrast masking with that of action priming under the same conditions. We observed priming with identical time course for reportable and invisible prime stimuli, despite qualitative changes in the masking time course. Our findings indicate that experimental variations that modify the subjective visual experience of masked stimuli have no effect on motor effects of those stimuli in early processing. We propose a model that provides a quantitative account of priming effects on response speed and accuracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0931489100

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Participants were thoroughly instructed and practised each task before completing the experiment, in contrast to Vorberg et al. (2003), where participants received minimal instructions and did not practice the tasks.

    “(i) Participants were thoroughly instructed and practised each task before completing the experiment, in contrast to Vorberg et al. (2003), where participants received minimal instructions and did not practice the tasks.”

    From Evidence for unconscious priming using a Bayesian single-subject approach (2026) · cites this paper as Vorberg et al. (2003)

    The Method/Design passage (page unavailable) describes task-specific instructions, including response speed and timing, rather than establishing that participants received minimal instructions. It also reports repeated task sessions; for Experiment 2, data were reported only from sessions three to seven. The paper does not explicitly identify dedicated practice trials, but its account is contrary to the unqualified claim that participants did not practise the tasks. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Instead of performing one task per session, the study alternated prime discrimination blocks and mask discrimination blocks in the same session to control for session-level confounds, such as differences in motivation or fatigue.

    “(ii) Instead of performing one task per session, as in Vorberg et al. (2003), we alternated prime discrimination blocks and mask discrimination blocks in the same session (see Fig. 1C) to control for session-level confounds, such as differences in motivation or fatigue.”

    From Evidence for unconscious priming using a Bayesian single-subject approach (2026) · cites this paper as Vorberg et al. (2003)

    The Experiment 1 Design passage assigns several tasks to separate sessions, supporting the comparison in part. But the Experiment 2 Design passage says choice reaction and prime recognition were administered in an a-d-a order within each session. Thus, 'one task per session' does not describe the cited paper as a whole; the citing authors’ stated reason for their own design is not attributed to Vorberg et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The study tested at the single subject level using a Bayesian statistical framework, instead of performing a frequentist fixed effect analysis at the group level as Vorberg et al. (2003) did.

    “(iv) As in Vorberg et al. (2003), we collected the data of six participants across multiple sessions. However, instead of performing a frequentist fixed effect analysis at the group level as Vorberg et al. (2003) did, we tested at the single subject level using a Bayesian statistical framework.”

    From Evidence for unconscious priming using a Bayesian single-subject approach (2026) · cites this paper as Vorberg et al. (2003)

    The Subjects passages report six participants tested across multiple sessions in each experiment. The Statistical methods passage describes frequentist group-level tests, including summed χ² statistics and repeated-measures ANOVAs, but it also says performance was tested for significance separately for each subject and condition. Thus the contrast with single-subject testing is overstated; the paper does not explicitly describe its analysis as fixed-effect. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many unconscious priming studies, including Vorberg et al. (2003), rely on the double t-test approach.

    “Further, many unconscious priming studies, including Vorberg et al. (2003), rely on what is known as the double t-test approach.”

    From Evidence for unconscious priming using a Bayesian single-subject approach (2026) · cites this paper as Vorberg et al. (2003)

    In Experiment 1, the Results report priming despite prime-orientation recognition remaining at chance, consistent with comparing an indirect priming measure against a direct awareness measure. But the Statistical methods section says recognition was tested with chi-square tests and reaction-time differences with ANOVAs, not two t-tests. The paper therefore supports the comparison underlying the claim, but not its literal description as a double t-test. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • At the group level, participants were able to discriminate the direction of the prime above chance across all SOAs, and this ability strongly increased with SOA.

    “Unlike Vorberg et al. (2003), at the group level, participants were able to discriminate the direction of the prime above chance across all SOAs, and unlike in the original study this ability also strongly increased with SOA (12.5 ms: BF10 = 107, d = 0.2; 25 ms: BF10 = 1015, d = 0.2; 37.5 ms: BF10 > 1040, d = 0.3; 50 ms: BF10 = 1014, d = 0.6; 62.5 ms: BF10 > 1040, d = 0.8; 75 ms: BF10 = 1028, d =”

    From Evidence for unconscious priming using a Bayesian single-subject approach (2026) · cites this paper as Vorberg et al. (2003)

    In the paper’s Experiment 1 Results (indexed as Abstract; no page given), prime-orientation recognition remained at chance across the tested SOAs, supporting the contrast with above-chance discrimination. But Experiment 2 Results and Discussion (also indexed as Abstract; no page given) reports that recognition of short primes improved as the mask occurred later. The claim that recognition did not increase with SOA in the original study is therefore too broad. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [13]Klotz W, Neumann O. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999;25:976–992. [Google Scholar]
  2. [14]Holender D. Behav Brain Sci. 1986;9:1–66. [Google Scholar]
  3. [15]Reingold E M, Merikle P M. In: Consciousness. Davies M, Humphreys G W, editors. Oxford: Blackwell; 1993. pp. 40–57. [Google Scholar]
  4. [16]Luce R D. Response Times. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  5. [20]Yellott J I., Jr J Math Psychol. 1971;8:159–199. [Google Scholar]
  6. [22]Leuthold H, Kopp B. Psychol Sci. 1998;9:263–269. [Google Scholar]
  7. [33]Merikle P M, Joordens S. Conscious Cognit. 1997;6:219–236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [35]Grossberg S, Mingolla E. Psychol Rev. 1985;92:173–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [45]Dosher B A, Rosedale G. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1989;118:191–211. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-04-28
Volume
100
Issue
10
Pages
6275-6280
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0931489100
PMC
PMC156362
OpenAlex
W2006679631
Cited by
450
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 36
FWCI
6.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
action priming, metacontrast masking, visual perception, visual awareness, masked stimuli, motor response speed, response accuracy, temporal dynamics, early visual processing, stimulus visibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Choice Behavior, Humans, Functional Laterality, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time, Visual Perception

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