English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Some studies of unconscious cognition rely on judgments of participantsstating that they have "not seen" the critical stimulus (e.g., in amasked-priming experiment). Trials in which participants gave "not-seen"judgments are then treated as those where the critical stimulus was"subliminal" or "unconscious", as opposed to trials with higher visibilityratings. Sometimes, only these trials are further analyzed, for instance, forunconscious priming effects. Here I argue that this practice requires implicitassumptions about subjective measures of awareness incompatible with basicmodels of categorization under uncertainty (e.g., modern signal-detection andthreshold theories). Most importantly, it ignores the potential effects ofresponse bias. Instead of taking "not-seen" judgments literally, they wouldbetter be employed in parametric experiments where stimulus visibility ismanipulated systematically, not accidentally. This would allow studyingqualitative and double dissociations between measures of awareness and ofstimulus processing per se.

Invisible stimuli, implicit thresholds: Why invisibility judgments cannot be interpreted in isolation