When objects denoted by target words are classified as belonging to a certain category (e.g., to be either small or large) responding is faster when the target word is preceded by a masked prime word belonging to the same rather than a different category. Recently, there has been some controversy on whether such masked priming effects are confined to primes that are practised as targets as well, or whether they transfer to other novel prime words. We report data which show that the transfer of unconscious priming to unpractised stimuli depends on the size of the target set. Priming does transfer to novel (unpractised) primes with a large target set (40 different target words), whereas no transfer to novel primes occurs with a small target set (4 different target words). We conclude that the size and structure of the target set crucially determine the way participants handle a task and thus, determine how unconscious stimuli are processed.
2
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
Arrow cues and other overlearned spatial symbols automatically orient attention according to their spatial meaning. This renders them similar to exogenous cues that occur at stimulus location. Exogenous cues trigger shifts of attention even when they are presented subliminally. Here, we investigate to what extent the mechanisms underlying the orienting of attention by exogenous cues and by arrow cues are comparable by analyzing the effects of visible and masked arrow cues on attention. In Experiment 1, we presented arrow cues with overall 50% validity. Visible cues, but not masked cues, lead to shifts of attention. In Experiment 2, the arrow cues had an overall validity of 80%. Now both visible and masked arrows lead to shifts of attention. This is in line with findings that subliminal exogenous cues capture attention only in a top-down contingent manner, that is, when the cues fit the observer's intentions.
3
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
Subliminal response priming has been considered to operate on several stages, e.g. perceptual, central or motor stages might be affected. While primes' impact on target perception has been clearly demonstrated, semantic response priming recently has been thrown into doubt (e.g. Klinger, Burton, & Pitts, 2000). Finally, LRP studies have revealed that subliminal primes evoke motor processes. Yet, the premises for such prime-evoked motor activation are not settled. A transfer of priming to stimuli that have never been presented as targets appears particularly interesting because it suggests a level of processing that goes beyond a reactivation of previously acquired S-R links. Yet, such transfer has not always withstood empirical testing. To account for these contradictory results, we proposed a two-process model (Kunde, Kiesel, & Hoffmann, 2003): First, participants build up expectations regarding imperative stimuli for the required responses according to experience and/or instructions. Second, stimuli that match these "action triggers" directly activate the corresponding motor responses irrespective of their conscious identification. In line with these assumptions, recent studies revealed that non-target primes induce priming when they fit the current task intentions and when they are expected in the experimental setting.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.