↓ Skip to main content

Criteria for unconscious cognition: Three types of dissociation

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
Criteria for unconscious cognition: Three types of dissociation
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, April 2006
DOI 10.3758/bf03193692
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Schmidt, Dirk Vorberg

Abstract

To demonstrate unconscious cognition, researchers commonly compare a direct measure (D) of awareness for a critical stimulus with an indirect measure (I) showing that the stimulus was cognitively processed at all. We discuss and empirically demonstrate three types of dissociation with distinct appearances in D-I plots, in which direct and indirect effects are plotted against each other in a shared effect size metric. Simple dissociations between D and I occur when I has some nonzero value and D is at chance level; the traditional requirement of zero awareness is necessary for this criterion only. Sensitivity dissociations only require that I be larger than D; double dissociations occur whensome experimental manipulation has opposite effects on I and D. We show that double dissociations require much weaker measurement assumptions than do other criteria. Several alternative approaches can be considered special cases of our framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 5 4%
Switzerland 3 2%
Netherlands 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 115 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 23%
Researcher 26 20%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 12 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 72 54%
Neuroscience 17 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Computer Science 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 17 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 June 2023.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#446
of 2,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,015
of 84,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 84,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.