Conscious and unconscious detection of semantic anomalies

Abstract

When asked What superhero is associated with bats, Robin, the Penguin, Metropolis, Catwoman, the Riddler, the Joker, and Mr. Freeze? people frequently fail to notice the anomalous word Metropolis. The goals of this study were to determine whether detection of semantic anomalies, like Metropolis, is conscious or unconscious and whether this detection is immediate or delayed. To achieve these goals, participants answered anomalous and nonanomalous questions as their reading times for words were recorded. Comparisons between detected versus undetected anomalies revealed slower reading times for detected anomalies-a finding that suggests that people immediately and consciously detected anomalies. Further, comparisons between first and second words following undetected anomalies versus nonanomalous controls revealed some slower reading times for first and second words-a finding that suggests that people may have unconsciously detected anomalies but this detection was delayed. Taken together, these findings support the idea that when we are immediately aware of a semantic anomaly (i.e., immediate conscious detection) our language processes make immediate adjustments in order to reconcile contradictory information of anomalies with surrounding text; however, even when we are not consciously aware of semantic anomalies, our language processes still make these adjustments, although these adjustments are delayed (i.e., delayed unconscious detection).

Validating semantic illusions: Competition between context and general world knowledge.

“…If incorrect terms in the question (e.g., Moses) are coherent with other information in the question as well as the correct information (e.g., Noah), participants may accept this as “good enough” and fail to process the information any further (Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro, 2002; Sanford, 2002; Sanford & Emmott, 2012; Sanford & Graesser, 2006; Sanford & Sturt, 2002). One major finding from the semantic illusion literature that has supported the shallow processing argument is that “missed” semantic illusions (i.e., those that are not explicitly detected) do not result in any processing difficulty, either immediate or delayed (e.g., Bohan & Sanford, 2008; Sanford et al, 2011; see however, Cook et al, in press; Hannon, 2015). Detected illusions, on the other hand, have been shown to cause difficulty at different points in the time course of processing, depending on the experimental conditions (for a review, see Warren, 2011).…”