↓ Skip to main content

Conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive control: a theoretical perspective and a novel empirical approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive control: a theoretical perspective and a novel empirical approach
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guillermo Horga, Tiago V. Maia

Abstract

Controlled processing is often referred to as "voluntary" or "willful" and therefore assumed to depend entirely on conscious processes. Recent studies using subliminal-priming paradigms, however, have started to question this assumption. Specifically, these studies have shown that subliminally presented stimuli can induce adjustments in control. Such findings are not immediately reconcilable with the view that conscious and unconscious processes are separate, with each having its own neural substrates and modus operandi. We propose a different theoretical perspective that suggests that conscious and unconscious processes might be implemented by the same neural substrates and largely perform the same neural computations, with the distinction between the two arising mostly from the quality of representations (although not all brain regions may be capable of supporting conscious representations). Thus, stronger and more durable neuronal firing would give rise to conscious processes; weaker or less durable neuronal firing would remain below the threshold of consciousness but still be causally efficacious in affecting behavior. We show that this perspective naturally explains the findings that subliminally presented primes induce adjustments in cognitive control. We also highlight an important gap in this literature: whereas subliminal-priming paradigms demonstrate that an unconsciously presented prime is sufficient to induce adjustments in cognitive control, they are uninformative about what occurs under standard task conditions. In standard tasks, the stimuli themselves are consciously perceived; however, the extent to which the processes that lead to adjustments in control are conscious or unconscious remains unexplored. We propose a new paradigm suitable to investigate these issues and to test important predictions of our hypothesis that conscious and unconscious processes both engage the same control machinery, differing mostly in the quality of the representations.

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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 114 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Professor 9 7%
Other 33 27%
Unknown 17 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Engineering 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 27 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,342,399
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,344
of 7,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,076
of 251,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#172
of 293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 251,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 293 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.