Current literature holds that many cognitive functions can be performed outside consciousness. Evidence for this view comes from unconscious priming. In a typical experiment, visual stimuli are masked, such that participants are close to chance when directly asked to which of two categories the stimuli belong. This close-to-zero sensitivity is seen as evidence that participants cannot consciously report the category of the masked stimuli. Nevertheless, the category of the masked stimuli can indirectly affect responses to other stimuli (e.g., reaction times or brain activity). Priming is therefore seen as evidence that there is still some (albeit unconscious) sensitivity to the stimulus categories, thereby indicating processing outside consciousness. Although this "standard reasoning of unconscious priming" has been used in many studies, we show that it is flawed: Sensitivities are not calculated appropriately, hereby creating the wrong impression that priming indicated better sensitivity than the close-to-zero sensitivity of the direct discrimination. We describe the appropriate way to determine sensitivities, replicate the behavioral part of a landmark study, develop a method to estimate sensitivities for published studies from reported summary statistics, and use this method to reanalyze 15 highly influential studies. Results show that the interpretations of many studies need to be changed and that a community effort to reassess the vast literature on unconscious priming is needed. This process will allow scientists to learn more about the true boundary conditions of unconscious priming, thereby advancing the scientific understanding of consciousness.
翻译:目前文献认为,许多认知功能可以在意识之外履行。这种观点的证据来自无意识的边缘。在典型的实验中,视觉刺激被掩盖,因此当直接询问刺激属于哪类时,参与者接近于机会。这种近到零的敏感性被视为参与者无法自觉报告蒙面刺激类别的证据。然而,蒙面刺激的类别可以间接影响对其他刺激(例如反应时间或大脑活动)的反应。在典型的实验中,这种观点的证据被视为对刺激类别仍有某种(尽管没有意识)敏感性的证据,从而表明直接询问刺激属于哪类。这种“无意识刺激的标准推理”在许多研究中被使用过,但我们认为它有缺陷:认知性没有得到适当计算,因此造成错误的印象是,蒙面的科学家比直接歧视的近至零敏感性更能影响反应。我们描述了确定敏感性的适当方法,复制行为研究的标志性部分,从而表明对刺激类别的敏感度,从而表明对意识之外的处理。尽管许多研究使用了这种“没有意识的刺激”的标准推理,但我们表明,但这种“意识的推理论”是错误的错误的,因此,需要从大量简要统计学研究的推理学到大量推算。