Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:44:10.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Unconscious Information Affect Cognitive Activity?: A Study Using Experimental Priming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Margarita G. Filippova
Margarita G. Filippova*
Affiliation:
St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Margarita G. Filippova. St. Petersburg State University. Universitetskaya nab. 7/9. 199034 St. Petersburg. (Russian Federation). Phone: +7 -812- 3289401. E-mail: box4fox@yandex.ru
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a series of three experiments the influence that information unrecognised by the subjects has on the effectiveness of occurring cognitive activity is studied. With this aim 3 types of stimulus were compared which for one reason or another were not afforded sufficient attention, namely: unconscious meanings of polysemantic information, stimuli presented at the subliminal level, and intentionally ignored distractors. All the listed types of stimuli are united in that the subjects were not able to give an account of them, i.e., these stimuli were not processed attentively. It is assumed that each of the types of stimuli studied is in actuality perceived, which can be judged by the impact they have on occurring cognitive activity. The purpose of the present research is the comparison of this impact: apart from the determination of the impact of unperceived stimuli on the information directly associated with them (priming-effect registration), also identified is the presence/absence of an overall interference effect rendered by the unperceived stimuli on the performance of occurring cognitive activity. To this end, each experiment had a control condition the aim of which was the creation of the possibility for the subjects to perceive stimuli unnoticed under experimental conditions. An experimental priming paradigm was used in combination with image-classification and lexical-decision tasks.

The results of the experiments conducted demonstrate that all types of stimuli ‘slipping the attention’ are assimilated, but their effect on occurring cognitive activity is varied. Thus, subliminally presented information aids, and distractors, on the contrary, hinder the solution of tasks associated with them, whereas unperceived meanings of polysemantic information hinder not only the solution of the tasks directly associated with them, but also the performance of any other cognitive activity for which they serve as a context. The effect of subliminal stimuli on occurring cognitive activity in the present research is explained by the spreading activation in the memory, the effect of distractors – by the inhibition of irrelevant representations in the information-processing system. For an explanation of the consequence of unperceived meanings of polysemanticity, not only an inhibition model was used, but also an unconscious negative choice model which assumed the necessity of making a special decision on non-perception.

En una serie de tres experimentos se estudió la influencia que tiene la información no reconocida por los participantes en la efectividad de la actividad cognitiva concurrente. Con este objetivo, se compararon 3 tipos de estímulos que por una razón u otra, no obtenían suficiente atención, como: significados no conscientes de información poli-semántica, estímulos presentados a nivel subliminal, y distractores ignorados intencionalmente. Todos los tipos de estímulos mencionados tienen en común que los sujetos no eran capaces de percatarse de ellos, i.e., estos estímulos no se procesaban atentamente. Se asume que cada uno de los tipos de estímulos estudiados es percibido, lo que puede juzgarse por el impacto que tienen en la actividad cognitiva concurrente. El propósito de esta investigación es la comparación de este impacto: además de la determinación del impacto de estímulos no percibidos en la información directamente asociada a ellos (registro del efecto de facilitación), también se identifica la presencia/ausencia de un efecto global de interferencia de los estímulos no percibidos en el en el desempeño de la actividad cognitiva concurrente. Hasta este punto, cada experimento tuvo una condición de control cuyo objetivo era crear la posibilidad de que los sujetos percibieran los estímulos no percatados bajo las condiciones  experimentales. Se utilizó un paradigma experimental de priming en combinación con tareas de clasificación de imágenes y de decisión léxica. Los resultados de los experimentos realizados demuestran que todos los tipos de estímulos que “escapaban a la atención” eran asimilados, pero su efecto en la actividad cognitiva concurrente variaba. Por tanto, la información presentada de forma subliminal facilita, y los distractores, al contrario, retrasan la solución de tareas asociadas a ellos, mientras que los significados no percibidos de la información poli semántica retrasan no sólo la solución de tareas directamente asociadas a ellos, pero también el desempeño de cualquier otra actividad cognitiva para la que sirvan como contexto. El efecto de estímulos subliminales en la actividad cognitiva concurrente de esta investigación se explica por la propagación de la activación en memoria, el efecto de los distractores –por la inhibición de representaciones irrelevantes en el sistema de procesamiento de información. Para dar una explicación de la consecuencia de significados de poli semántica no percibidos, no sólo se ha utilizado un modelo de inhibición sino también un modelo de decisión negativa inconsciente que asume la necesidad de tomar una decisión especial en no-percepción.

Keywords

unconscious perceptionpriming-effectlexical decision taskpolysemantic imagessubliminal stimulidistractornegative choicepercepción no conscienteefecto de primingtarea de decisión léxicaimágenes poli-semánticasestímulos subliminalesdistractordecisión negativa
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , May 2011 , pp. 20 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agafonov, A. Y. (2006). Kognitivnaya psikhomekhanika soznaniya ili kak soznanie neosoznanno prinimaet reshenie ob osoznanii [Cognitive psychomechanics or how consciousness unconsciously makes decision about awareness]. Samara: Univers grupp.Google Scholar
Allakhverdov, V. M. (2000). Soznanie kak paradox [Consciousness as paradox]. Sankt-Peterburg: DNK.Google Scholar
Allport, D. A., Tipper, S. P., & Chmiel, N. R. (1985). Perceptual integration and post categorical filtering. In Posner, M. I., & Marin, O. S.. Attention and performance XI, (pp. 107–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurance Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., & Paul, S. T. (1996). Summation of activation: evidence from multiple primes that converge and diverge within semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 827–845. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.22.4.827Google ScholarPubMed
Bryant, J., Thompson, S. (2004). Osnovy vozdeistviya SMI [Foundation of mass media influence] Moskva: Williams.Google Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.82.6.407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple-AIford, E. C., & Budayr, B. (1966). Examination of some aspects of the Stroop Color-Word Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23, 1211–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falikman, M. V., & Koifman A, Y. (2005). Vidi praiming-effektov v issledovaniyakh vospriyatiya i pertseptivnogo vnimaniya [Types of prime-effects in research of perception and perceptive attention]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Psikhologiya, 3(14), 86–97.Google Scholar
Filippova, M. G. (2009). Osoznavaemye i neosoznavaemye komponenty vospriyatiya mnogoznachnikh izobrazhenii [Conscious and unconscious components of perception of ambiguous pictures]. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya: Sbornik Nauchnih Trudov, 7, 73–91.Google Scholar
Filippova, M. G. (2006). Rol neosoznavaemykh znacheniy v protsesse vospriyatiya mnogoznachnykh izobrazheniy [The role of unaware meanings in the perception of ambiguous images]. (Unpublished master's thesis). St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.Google Scholar
Foster, K., Booker, J., Schacter, D., & Davis, C. (1990). Masked repetition priming: Lexical activation or novel memory trace? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostandov, E. A. (1977). Vospriyatie i emotsii [Perception & Emotions]. Moskva: Meditsina.Google Scholar
Kramer, A. F., & Strayer, D. L. (2001). Influence of stimulus repetition on negative priming. Psychology and Aging, 16(4), 580–587. doi:10.1037//0882-7974.16.4.580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kudelkina, N. S. (2008) Vospriatiye mnogoznachnoi informatsii kak predmet psikhologicheskogo issledovaniya [Perception of ambiguous information as the subject of psychological research], Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, 12(4), 268–277.Google Scholar
MacLeod, C., & Hagan, R. (1992). Anxiety and the selective processing of emotional information. Behavior Research and Therapy, 30, 151–161. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(92)90138-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcel, A. J. (1980). Selective effects of prior context on perception. In Requin, J. Anticipation and behaviour (pp. 412–430). París: CNRSGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234. doi:10.1037/h0031564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, D. G. (2008). Sotsialnaya psikhologiya [Social psychology]. (7th ed). St.Petersburg: Piter.Google Scholar
Palmer, J., & Jonides, J. (1988). Automatic Memory Search and the Effects of Information Load and Irrelevant Information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 136–143. doi:10.1037 //0278-7393.14.1.136Google Scholar
Pavese, A., & Umilta, C. (1999). Further evidence on the effect of symbolic distance on Stroop-like interference. Psychological Research: Psychologische Forschung, 1(62), 62–71. doi:10.1007/s004260050040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. (1994). Inhibitory processes in the recognition of homograph meanings. In Dagenhach, D. & Carr, T. H. (Eds.), Inhibitory mechanisms in attention, memory and language, (pp. 359–381). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipper, S. P. (1991). Less attentional selectivity as a result of declining inhibition in older adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 45–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanism? A review and integration of conflicting views. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A(2), 321–343. doi:10.1080/02724980042000183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipper, S. P., & Cranston, M. (1985). Selective attention and priming: Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 37, 591–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tipper, S. P., & Driver, J. (1988). Negative priming between pictures and word in a selective attention task: Evidence for semantic processing of ignored stimuli. Memory and Cognition, 1(16), 64–70. doi:10.3758/BF03197746CrossRefGoogle Scholar