Unconscious Integration of Categorical Relationship of Two Subliminal Numbers in Comparison with "5"

Overview

Journal Behav Sci (Basel)

Date 2024 Apr 26

PMID 38667092

Authors

Changjun Li

Qingying Liu

Yingjuan Liu

Jerwen Jou

Shen Tu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Many studies have shown that the brain can process subliminal numerals, i.e., participants can categorize a subliminal number into two categories: greater than 5 or less than 5. In the context of many studies on the unconscious integration of multiple subliminal stimuli, the issue of whether multiple subliminal numbers can be integrated is contentious. The same-different task is regarded as a perfect tool to explore unconscious integration. In the two experiments reported, we used a same-different task in which a pair of masked prime numbers was followed by a pair of target numbers, and participants were asked to decide whether the two target numbers were on the same (both smaller or larger than 5) or different sides (one smaller, the other larger than 5) of 5 in magnitude. The results indicated that the prime numbers could be categorized unconsciously, which was reflected by the category priming effect, and that the unconscious category relationship of the two prime numbers could affect the judgment on the category relationship of the two target numbers, as reflected by the response priming effect. The duration of the prime-to-target interstimulus interval (ISI) was also manipulated, showing a positive compatibility effect (PCE) of category priming and a negative compatibility effect (NCE) of response priming no matter whether the ISI was short (50 ms) or long (150 ms). The NCE, which occurred when the prime-to-target ISI was relatively short in this study, contradicted the conventional view but was consistent with previous results of unconscious integration based on an attention modulation mechanism. Importantly, this study provided evidence for the still-under-debate issue of numerical information integration.

References

Meyen S, Zerweck I, Amado C, von Luxburg U, Franz V . Advancing research on unconscious priming: When can scientists claim an indirect task advantage?. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021; 151(1):65-81. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001065. View

Jaskowski P, Verleger R . What determines the direction of subliminal priming. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2010; 3(1-2):181-92. PMC: 2864970. DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0024-1. View

Eimer M, Schlaghecken F . Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: evidence from masked priming. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 9(3):514-20. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196307. View

Reynvoet B, Brysbaert M . Cross-notation number priming investigated at different stimulus onset asynchronies in parity and naming tasks. Exp Psychol. 2004; 51(2):81-90. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.51.2.81. View

Hirschhorn R, Kahane O, Gur-Arie I, Faivre N, Mudrik L . Windows of Integration Hypothesis Revisited. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021; 14:617187. PMC: 7840615. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.617187. View

Van Opstal F, Reynvoet B, Verguts T . How to trigger elaborate processing? A comment on Kunde, Kiesel, and Hoffmann (2003). Cognition. 2005; 97(1):89-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.011. View

Lingnau A, Vorberg D . The time course of response inhibition in masked priming. Percept Psychophys. 2005; 67(3):545-57. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193330. View

Sklar A, Levy N, Goldstein A, Mandel R, Maril A, Hassin R . Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(48):19614-9. PMC: 3511729. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1211645109. View

Van Opstal F, Buc Calderon C, Gevers W, Verguts T . Setting the stage subliminally: unconscious context effects. Conscious Cogn. 2011; 20(4):1860-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.004. View

10.

Naccache L, Dehaene S . Unconscious semantic priming extends to novel unseen stimuli. Cognition. 2001; 80(3):215-29. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00139-6. View

11.

Ratinckx E, Brysbaert M, Fias W . Naming two-digit arabic numerals: evidence from masked priming studies. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005; 31(5):1150-63. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.1150. View

12.

Moors P, Hesselmann G . A critical reexamination of doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 25(1):472-481. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1292-x. View

13.

Liu C, Sun Z, Jou J, Cui Q, Zhao G, Qiu J . Unconscious Processing of Facial Emotional Valence Relation: Behavioral Evidence of Integration between Subliminally Perceived Stimuli. PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0162689. PMC: 5021299. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162689. View

14.

Mudrik L, Faivre N, Koch C . Information integration without awareness. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014; 18(9):488-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.009. View

15.

Lin Z, Murray S . Unconscious processing of an abstract concept. Psychol Sci. 2013; 25(1):296-8. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504964. View

16.

Tu S, Liu C, Zhu S, Jou J, Zhou Y, Wan S . The Semantic Integration Between Two Subliminally Perceived Words Simultaneously Presented at Different Locations. J Psycholinguist Res. 2019; 48(5):1087-1110. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-019-09648-9. View

17.

Hassin R . Yes It Can: On the Functional Abilities of the Human Unconscious. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 8(2):195-207. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460684. View

18.

Van Opstal F, Rooyakkers M . Unconscious information integration: A replication and the role of spatial window in masking experiments. Cognition. 2022; 225:105113. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105113. View

19.

Damian M . Asymmetries in the processing of Arabic digits and number words. Mem Cognit. 2004; 32(1):164-71. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195829. View

20.

Kouider S, Dehaene S . Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: a critical review of visual masking. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007; 362(1481):857-75. PMC: 2430002. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2093. View