Context Modulation of Ambiguous Object Perception in The Absence of Awareness

Biderman, Dan; Mudrik, Liad

doi:10.1167/17.10.1224

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the main goal is to determine the validity of a sentence, comprehenders might decide not to spend additional effort as the detection of a conflict is enough to determine that a sentence is false. This reasoning is in accordance with semantic integration studies (e.g., Berkum, Hagoort, & Brown, 1999), which point at the sensitivity of the mental system to semantic violations (e.g., Kutas & Hillyard, 1980) and incongruencies (e.g., Hagoort, Hald, Bastiaansen, & Petersson, 2004; see also Biderman & Mudrik, 2017, for implicit processing of incongruencies), typically indexed by the N400 component (for review, see Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). Critically, these studies demonstrated the importance of association strength in processing, irrespective of validity (see also DeLong, Urbach & Kutas, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Detecting falsehood relies on mismatch detection between sentence components

Weil

Mudrik

2020

Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do people process and evaluate falsehood of sentences? Do people need to compare presented information with the correct answer to determine that a sentence is false, or do they rely on a mismatch between presented sentence components? To illustrate, when confronted with the false sentence 'trains run on highways', does one need to know that trains do not run on highways or does one need to know that trains run on tracks to reject the sentence as false?To investigate these questions, participants were asked to validate sentences that were preceded by images (Experiments 1-3) conveying a truth-congruent or a falsehood-congruent component of the sentence (e.g., an image of tracks/highway preceding the sentence 'trains run on tracks/highways') or by words (Experiment 4) that were either sentence-congruent, truth-congruent, or both (e.g., the word 'train/tracks' preceding the sentence 'trains run on tracks/highways'). Results from four experiments showed that activating sentence-congruent concepts facilitates validation for both false and true sentences but that activating truthcongruent concepts did not aid the validation of false sentences. The present findings suggest that a detection of falsehood relies on a mismatch detection between sentence's components, rather than on the activation of true content in the context of a particular sentence.

show abstract