↓ Skip to main content

Comparing unconscious processing during continuous flash suppression and meta-contrast masking just under the limen of consciousness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Comparing unconscious processing during continuous flash suppression and meta-contrast masking just under the limen of consciousness
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00969
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ziv Peremen, Dominique Lamy

Abstract

Stimuli can be rendered invisible using a variety of methods and the method selected to demonstrate unconscious processing in a given study often appears to be arbitrary. Here, we compared unconscious processing under continuous flash suppression (CFS) and meta-contrast masking, using similar stimuli, tasks and measures. Participants were presented with a prime arrow followed by a target arrow. They made a speeded response to the target arrow direction and then reported on the prime's visibility. Perception of the prime was made liminal using either meta-contrast masking (Experiment 1) or CFS (Experiments 2 and 3). Conscious perception of the prime was assessed using a sensitive visibility scale ranging from 0 to 3 and unconscious processing was measured as the priming effect on target discrimination performance of prime-target direction congruency when prime visibility was null. Crucially, in order to ensure that the critical stimuli were equally distant from the limen of consciousness, we sought stimulus and temporal parameters for which the proportion of 0-visibility trials was comparable for the two methods. We found that the method used to prevent conscious perception matters: unconscious processing was substantial with meta-contrast masking but absent with CFS. These findings suggest that CFS allows very little perceptual processing, if at all, and that previous reports of high-level and complex unconscious processing during CFS may result from partial awareness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 86 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Student > Master 18 20%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 53%
Neuroscience 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 15 17%
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 26 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,785,250
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,055
of 29,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,195
of 238,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#265
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 238,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.