↓ Skip to main content

Can the meaning of multiple words be integrated unconsciously?

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can the meaning of multiple words be integrated unconsciously?
Published in
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, May 2014
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2013.0212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon van Gaal, Lionel Naccache, Julia D. I. Meuwese, Anouk M. van Loon, Alexandra H. Leighton, Laurent Cohen, Stanislas Dehaene

Abstract

What are the limits of unconscious language processing? Can language circuits process simple grammatical constructions unconsciously and integrate the meaning of several unseen words? Using behavioural priming and electroencephalography (EEG), we studied a specific rule-based linguistic operation traditionally thought to require conscious cognitive control: the negation of valence. In a masked priming paradigm, two masked words were successively (Experiment 1) or simultaneously presented (Experiment 2), a modifier ('not'/'very') and an adjective (e.g. 'good'/'bad'), followed by a visible target noun (e.g. 'peace'/'murder'). Subjects indicated whether the target noun had a positive or negative valence. The combination of these three words could either be contextually consistent (e.g. 'very bad - murder') or inconsistent (e.g. 'not bad - murder'). EEG recordings revealed that grammatical negations could unfold partly unconsciously, as reflected in similar occipito-parietal N400 effects for conscious and unconscious three-word sequences forming inconsistent combinations. However, only conscious word sequences elicited P600 effects, later in time. Overall, these results suggest that multiple unconscious words can be rapidly integrated and that an unconscious negation can automatically 'flip the sign' of an unconscious adjective. These findings not only extend the limits of subliminal combinatorial language processes, but also highlight how consciousness modulates the grammatical integration of multiple words.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Belgium 2 1%
France 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 160 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 18%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 32 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 65 38%
Neuroscience 32 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Linguistics 6 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 39 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2023.
All research outputs
#6,623,109
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#3,774
of 7,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,143
of 242,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#52
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.