Specifying attentional top-down influences on subsequent unconscious semantic processing

Martens, Ulla; Kiefer, Markus

doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0067-3

Cited by 43 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This assumption is also in line with many studies on masked priming effects indicating that subliminally presented stimuli generally impacted on behavior only if the prime fits the current top-down setting/current intentions (e.g., Ansorge, 2006; Kiefer, 2007; Kiefer & Brendel, 2006; Kiesel, 2009; Kiesel, Kunde, & Hoffmann, 2007; Kiesel, Kunde, Pohl, & Hoffmann, 2006; Kunde, Kiesel, & Hoffmann, 2003, 2005; Martens & Kiefer, 2009; Pohl, Kiesel, Kunde, & Hoffmann, 2010). Taken together, these results show that the effects of masked stimuli both on behavior and on attention are based on strikingly similar preconditions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Follow the sign! Top-down contingent attentional capture of masked arrow cues

Reuss¹,

Pohl²,

Kiesel³

et al. 2011

Advances in Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arrow cues and other overlearned spatial symbols automatically orient attention according to their spatial meaning. This renders them similar to exogenous cues that occur at stimulus location. Exogenous cues trigger shifts of attention even when they are presented subliminally. Here, we investigate to what extent the mechanisms underlying the orienting of attention by exogenous cues and by arrow cues are comparable by analyzing the effects of visible and masked arrow cues on attention. In Experiment 1, we presented arrow cues with overall 50% validity. Visible cues, but not masked cues, lead to shifts of attention. In Experiment 2, the arrow cues had an overall validity of 80%. Now both visible and masked arrows lead to shifts of attention. This is in line with findings that subliminal exogenous cues capture attention only in a top-down contingent manner, that is, when the cues fit the observer’s intentions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Follow the sign! Top-down contingent attentional capture of masked arrow cues

Reuss¹,

Pohl²,

Kiesel³

et al. 2011

Advances in Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these studies, directing attention to the time window, location, and/or feature of a subliminal stimulus occasioned or improved processing of that stimulus, but not up to a point that the stimulus became conscious. Other findings show the modulating influence of the amount of available attention on unconscious processing (Martens & Kiefer 2009). For instance, Pessoa et al (2002) reported that the manipulation of attention load led to more or less activity in subcortical structures, such as the amygdala, and this activity was taken as evidence of unconscious processing.…”

Section: Necessity Of Attention For Consciousnessmentioning

confidence: 97%

Automaticity: Componential, Causal, and Mechanistic Explanations

Moors

2016

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

175

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The review first discusses componential explanations of automaticity, which specify non/automaticity features (e.g., un/controlled, un/conscious, non/efficient, fast/slow) and their interrelations. Reframing these features as factors that influence processes (e.g., goals, attention, and time) broadens the range of factors that can be considered (e.g., adding stimulus intensity and representational quality). The evidence reviewed challenges the view of a perfect coherence among goals, attention, and consciousness, and supports the alternative view that (a) these and other factors influence the quality of representations in an additive way (e.g., little time can be compensated by extra attention or extra stimulus intensity) and that (b) a first threshold of this quality is required for unconscious processing and a second threshold for conscious processing. The review closes with a discussion of causal explanations of automaticity, which specify factors involved in automatization such as repetition and complexity, and a discussion of mechanistic explanations, which specify the low-level processes underlying automatization.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, Ng, Chan, and Schlaghecken (2012) showed that unconscious visuo-motor processes are differentially influenced by cognitive control settings induced by specific emotional states (subclinical depression vs. anxiety). Using a novel procedure for masked priming of words and of geometrical shapes, attentional task sets were shown to influence unconscious semantic and visuo-motor processes selectively (Kiefer & Martens, 2010; Martens & Kiefer, 2009). These results demonstrate that preemptive top-down control of unconscious processes coordinates the perceptual and semantic processing streams: An attentional sensitization mechanism enhances or attenuates the responsiveness of semantic and visuo-motor processing pathways to incoming subliminal stimuli depending on the currently activated task set (Kiefer, 2007; Kiefer & Martens, 2010), thereby differentially influencing subsequent subliminal semantic and visuo-motor priming.…”

Section: Identifying General Principles Underlying Conscious and Uncomentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuro-cognitive mechanisms of conscious and unconscious visual perception: From a plethora of phenomena to general principles

Kiefer¹,

Ansorge²,

Haynes³

et al. 2011

Advances in Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological and neuroscience approaches have promoted much progress in elucidating the cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie phenomenal visual awareness during the last decades. In this article, we provide an overview of the latest research investigating important phenomena in conscious and unconscious vision. We identify general principles to characterize conscious and unconscious visual perception, which may serve as important building blocks for a unified model to explain the plethora of findings. We argue that in particular the integration of principles from both conscious and unconscious vision is advantageous and provides critical constraints for developing adequate theoretical models. Based on the principles identified in our review, we outline essential components of a unified model of conscious and unconscious visual perception. We propose that awareness refers to consolidated visual representations, which are accessible to the entire brain and therefore globally available. However, visual awareness not only depends on consolidation within the visual system, but is additionally the result of a post-sensory gating process, which is mediated by higher-level cognitive control mechanisms. We further propose that amplification of visual representations by attentional sensitization is not exclusive to the domain of conscious perception, but also applies to visual stimuli, which remain unconscious. Conscious and unconscious processing modes are highly interdependent with influences in both directions. We therefore argue that exactly this interdependence renders a unified model of conscious and unconscious visual perception valuable. Computational modeling jointly with focused experimental research could lead to a better understanding of the plethora of empirical phenomena in consciousness research.

show abstract

Specifying attentional top-down influences on subsequent unconscious semantic processing

Cited by 43 publications

References 46 publications

Follow the sign! Top-down contingent attentional capture of masked arrow cues

Follow the sign! Top-down contingent attentional capture of masked arrow cues

Automaticity: Componential, Causal, and Mechanistic Explanations

Neuro-cognitive mechanisms of conscious and unconscious visual perception: From a plethora of phenomena to general principles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About