Different time courses for visual perception and action priming

In the citing paper

“(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.”

In the citing paper

“(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.”

In the citing paper

“(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.”

In the citing paper

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

In the citing paper

“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 =”

In the citing paper

“Moreover, based on (Vorberg et al. 2003) we expected most SOAs in the prime discrimination task to show null or near-zero effects.”

In the citing paper

“However, unlike in the original study by Vorberg and colleagues, evidence for unconscious priming was not consistently present across all SOAs”

In the citing paper

“Based on the visual material and specifications in the methods of Vorberg et al. (2003), we reconstructed the stimuli to be as close as possible to the original.”

In the citing paper

“In the first session, we tried to replicate the core original experiment by Vorberg et al. (2003) as closely as possible (albeit with slightly different presentation times and different display technology; see Stimuli, timing and apparatus above).”

In the citing paper

“In a classic study by Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J. (Different time courses for visual perception and action priming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003, 100(10), 6275–6280.), observers were slower to identify the direction of an arrow mask when it followed an arrow prime pointing in the opposite direction, despite being unable to identify”

In the citing paper

“As can be seen in Fig. 2, the overall data pattern was similar to that obtained in their study (see Fig. 1A and B).”

In the citing paper

“The data pattern from the initial session mostly replicated the original results by Vorberg et al. (2003).”

In the citing paper

“The mask discrimination results closely resembled the original results by Vorberg et al. (2003): RTs were, on average, longer for incongruent compared with congruent trials (see 3B), and this priming effect difference became more pronounced as the SOA increased (12.5 ms: BF10 = 0.009, d = 0.1; 25 ms: BF10 = 1019, d = 0.8; 37.5 ms: BF10 = 1013, d = 1.4; 50 ms: BF10 = 1013, d = 1.7; 62.5 ms: BF10 =”