Cited by 139Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Can the meaning of multiple words be integrated unconsciously?

Open access
van Gaal, Simon, Naccache, Lionel, Meuwese, Julia D. I., van Loon, Anouk M., Leighton, Alexandra H., Cohen, Laurent, Dehaene, Stanislas·2014·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

What are the limits of unconscious language processing? Can language circuits process simple grammatical constructions unconsciously and integrate the meaning of several unseen words? Using behavioural priming and electroencephalography (EEG), we studied a specific rule-based linguistic operation traditionally thought to require conscious cognitive control: the negation of valence. In a masked priming paradigm, two masked words were successively (Experiment 1) or simultaneously presented (Experiment 2), a modifier (‘not’/‘very’) and an adjective (e.g. ‘good’/‘bad’), followed by a visible target noun (e.g. ‘peace’/‘murder’). Subjects indicated whether the target noun had a positive or negative valence. The combination of these three words could either be contextually consistent (e.g. ‘very bad - murder’) or inconsistent (e.g. ‘not bad - murder’). EEG recordings revealed that grammatical negations could unfold partly unconsciously, as reflected in similar occipito-parietal N400 effects for conscious and unconscious three-word sequences forming inconsistent combinations. However, only conscious word sequences elicited P600 effects, later in time. Overall, these results suggest that multiple unconscious words can be rapidly integrated and that an unconscious negation can automatically ‘flip the sign’ of an unconscious adjective. These findings not only extend the limits of subliminal combinatorial language processes, but also highlight how consciousness modulates the grammatical integration of multiple words.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2013.0212

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Gaal, S., Naccache, L., Meuwese, J. D. I., van Loon, A. M., Leighton, A. H., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S.
Affiliations
  • INSERM, Cognitive Neuroimaging Unit, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2014-05-05
Volume
369
Issue
1641
Pages
20130212
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2143080319
Cited by
139
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
subliminal perception, masked priming, grammatical negation, N400, P600, consciousness, semantic integration, cognitive control
MeSH terms
Brain, Electroencephalography, Humans, Models, Neurological, Semantics, Unconscious, Psychology, Comprehension

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