Unconscious semantic processing of polysemous words is not automatic

Abstract

Semantic processing of visually presented words can be identified both on behavioral and neurophysiological evidence. One of the major discoveries of the last decades is the demonstration that these signatures of semantic processing, initially observed for consciously perceived words, can also be detected for masked words inaccessible to conscious reports. In this context, the distinction between conscious and unconscious verbal semantic processing constitutes a challenging scientific issue. A prominent view considered that while conscious representations are subject to executive control, unconscious ones would operate automatically in a modular way, independent from control and top-down influences. Recent findings challenged this view by revealing that endogenous attention and task-setting can have a strong influence on unconscious processing. However, one of the major arguments supporting the automaticity of unconscious semantic processing still stands, stemming from a seminal observation reported by Marcel in 1980 about polysemous words. In the present study we reexamined this evidence. We present a combination of behavioral and event-related-potentials (ERPs) results that refute this view by showing that the current conscious semantic context has a major and similar influence on the semantic processing of both visible and masked polysemous words. In a classical lexical decision task, a polysemous word was preceded by a word which defined the current semantic context. Crucially, this context was associated with only one of the two meanings of the polysemous word, and was followed by a word/pseudo-word target. Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence of semantic priming of target words by masked polysemous words was strongly dependent on the conscious context. Moreover, we describe a new type of influence related to the response-code used to answer for target words in the lexical decision task: unconscious semantic priming constrained by the conscious context was present both in behavior and ERPs exclusively when right-handed subjects were instructed to respond to words with their right hand. The strong and respective influences of conscious context and response-code on semantic processing of masked polysemous words demonstrate that unconscious verbal semantic representations are not automatic.

What are the boundaries of unconscious semantic cognition?

“…This view was particularly popular among the general public, corresponding to a less “limited” or a “more open” unconscious mental life. Recently, trying to replicate this seminal work and, using a very similar ERP approach that the one reported by Nakamura in this issue, we demonstrated that unconscious semantic processing of polysemous word is actually very similar to what we observe in the conscious condition (Rohaut, Alario, Meadow, Cohen, & Naccache, ). Unconscious semantic processing of polysemous words was strongly influenced by the current conscious semantic context.…”

Linguistic Representation and Processing of Copredication

“…Taking stock, there are arguably three distinct processes underlying Incremental Semantic Complexity if the priming account can be sustained (which, as argued, it may not be) (Collins & Loftus 1975, Heyman et al 2015, Neely 1991, Rohaut et al 2016, Tabossi & Zardon 1993:…”

Dynamic interactions between top-down expectations and conscious awareness

“…http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/151019 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jun. 16, 2017; 14 on nonconscious information processing [68][69][70][71] , studies that have shown that the MMN can be observed when the prediction violations are unattended 31,35,37,38,72 and more generally evidence for relatively high-level processing of nonconscious stimuli 58,73,74 . Nevertheless, the absence of interactions in the ERP is also somewhat surprising, because as noted earlier such interactions between prediction validity and conscious T2 detection were present in behavior.…”