CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151Visual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceMemory Processes and Influences

Criteria for unconscious cognition: three types of dissociation

Open access
Schmidt, Thomas, Vorberg, Dirk·2006·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03193692
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To demonstrate unconscious cognition, researchers commonly compare a direct measure (D) of awareness for a critical stimulus with an indirect measure (I) showing that the stimulus was cognitively processed at all. We discuss and empirically demonstrate three types of dissociation with distinct appearances in D-I plots, in which direct and indirect effects are plotted against each other in a shared effect size metric. Simple dissociations between D and I occur when I has some nonzero value and D is at chance level; the traditional requirement of zero awareness is necessary for this criterion only. Sensitivity dissociations only require that I be larger than D; double dissociations occur whensome experimental manipulation has opposite effects on I and D. We show that double dissociations require much weaker measurement assumptions than do other criteria. Several alternative approaches can be considered special cases of our framework.

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 · 10.3758/bf03193692

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Most studies supporting the existence of unconscious priming rely on a dissociation procedure, i.e., showing that prime awareness is not significantly different from chance while also showing a significant priming effect.

    “Most studies supporting the existence of unconscious priming rely on what is usually referred to as a dissociation procedure (Reingold and Merikle 1988, Hannula et al. 2005, Schmidt and Vorberg 2006), i.e. showing that prime awareness is not significantly different from chance, while also showing a significant priming effect.”

    From Evidence for unconscious priming using a Bayesian single-subject approach (2026) · cites this paper as Schmidt and Vorberg 2006

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

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Bamber, D. (1975). The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 12, 387-415.
  2. Breitmeyer, B. (1984). Visual masking: An integrative approach. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507.
  4. Dosher, B. A. (1998). The response-window regression method: Some problematic assumptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen- eral, 127, 311-317.
  5. Draine, S. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (1998). Replicable unconscious semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 286-303.
  6. Dunn, J. C., & Kirsner, K. (1988). Discovering functionally indepen- dent mental processes: The principle of reversed association. Psycho- logical Review, 95, 91-101.
  7. Eriksen, C. W. (1960). Discrimination and learning without awareness: A methodological survey and evaluation. Psychological Review, 67, 279-300.
  8. Francis, G. (1997). Cortical dynamics of lateral inhibition: Metacon- trast masking. Psychological Review, 104, 572-594.
  9. Greenwald, A. G., Klinger, M. R., & Schuh, E. S. (1995). Activa- tion by marginally perceptible ("subliminal") stimuli: Dissociation of unconscious from conscious cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 22-42.
  10. Hirshman, E. (2004). Ordinal process-dissociation and the measure- ment of automatic and controlled processes. Psychological Review, 111, 553-560.
  11. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513-541.
  12. Jacoby, L. L. (1998). Invariance in automatic influences of memory: Toward a user's guide for the process-dissociation procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 3-26.
  13. Klauer, K. C., Draine, S. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (1998). An un- biased errors-in-variables approach to detecting unconscious cogni- tion. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 51, 253-267.
  14. Klotz, W., & Neumann, O. (1999). Motor activation without conscious discrimination in metacontrast masking. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 976-992.
  15. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
  16. Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (Eds.) (1963). Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
  17. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Merikle, P. M., & Cheesman, J. (1987). Current status of research on subliminal perception. In M. Wallendorf & P. F. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 14, pp. 298-302). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
  19. Merikle, P. M., & Joordens, S. (1997a). Measuring unconscious influ- ences. In J. D. Cohen & J. W. Schooler (Eds.), Scientific approaches to consciousness (pp. 109-123). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Miller, J. (2000). Measurement error in subliminal perception experi- ments: Simulation analyses of two regression methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1461-1477.
  21. Neumann, O., & Klotz, W. (1994). Motor responses to nonreportable, masked stimuli: Where is the limit of direct parameter specification? In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 123-150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
  22. Reingold, E. M., & Merikle, P. M. (1993). Theory and measurement in the study of unconscious processes. In M. Davies & G. W. Hum- phreys (Eds.), Consciousness: Psychological and philosophical es- says (pp. 40-57). Oxford: Blackwell.
  23. Schmidt, T. (2000). Visual perception without awareness: Priming responses by color. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Neural correlates of con- sciousness (pp. 157-170). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  24. Shallice, T. (1979). Case study approach in neuropsychological re- search. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 183-211.
  25. Teuber, H.-L. (1955). Physiological psychology. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 6, 267-296.
  26. Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarz- bach, J. (2004). Invariant time-course of priming with and without awareness. In C. Kaernbach, E. Schröger, & H. Müller (Eds.), Psycho- physics beyond sensation: Laws and invariants of human cognition (pp. 271-288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  27. Wilcox, R. R. (1997). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. New York: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmidt, T., & Vorberg, D.
Affiliations
  • Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
  • Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Schmidt, Thomas
  • Vorberg, Dirk
ORCID
Schmidt, Thomas
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2006-04
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
489-504
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03193692
OpenAlex
W2005874159
Cited by
151
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Schm1671/1, Schm1671/1-1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
unconscious cognition, awareness, dissociation, double dissociation, direct and indirect measures, measurement assumptions
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Unconscious, Psychology, Models, Statistical

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