According to the direct parameter specification (DPS) account, reaction time effects of invisible primes depend on top–down control settings directed to targets (Neumann & Klotz, 1994). If this hypothesis holds, effects of invisible primes should decrease in dual–task as compared with single–task conditions: Prior to the primes control settings for the alternative task should be activated, which renders a match between target–directed control settings and primes less likely. In Experiments 1–2 and 4–5, a second task interfered with the validity effect of invisible primes. Control conditions ruled out several alternative explanations. Interference was not due to higher spatial memory loads (Experiments 1 vs. 2), increased numbers of stimuli or responses (Experiments 3–5), or increased response latencies (Experiment 3). If predictable, alternative tasks did not interfere (Experiment 3). The results are in line with the DPS account and less so with some classical definitions of automatic processing (e.g., Posner & Snyder, 1975).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnsorgeU. (2003). Asymmetric influences of temporally vs. nasally presented masked visual information: Evidence for collicular contributions to nonconscious priming effects.Brain and Cognition, 51, 317–325.
2.
AnsorgeU., & HeumannM. (2003). Top-down contingencies in peripheral cuing: The roles of color and location.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 937–948.
3.
AnsorgeU., HeumannM., & ScharlauI. (2002). Influences of visibility, intentions, and probability in a peripheral cuing task.Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 528–545.
4.
AnsorgeU., KlotzW., & NeumannO. (1998). Manual and verbal responses to completely masked (unreportable) stimuli: Exploring some conditions for the metacontrast dissociation.Perception, 27, 1177–1189.
5.
BotellaJ. (1996). Decision competition and response competition: Two main factors in the flanker compatibility effect. In KramerA. F., ColesM. G. H., & LoganG. D. (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 503–518). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
BreitmeyerB. G. (1984). Visual masking: An integrative approach.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
BreitmeyerB. G., & OgmenH. (2000). Recent models and findings in visual backward masking: A comparison, review, and update.Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1572–1595.
8.
BridgemanB., PeeryS., & AnandS. (1997). Interaction of cognitive and sensorimotor maps of visual space.Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 456–469.
9.
DamianM. F. (2001). Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: Automaticity rather than semantic priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 154–165.
EimerM., & SchlagheckenF. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737–1747.
12.
EimerM., & SchlagheckenF. (2001). Response facilitation and inhibition in manual, vocal, and oculomotor performance: Evidence for a modality-unspecific mechanism.Journal of Motor Behaviour, 33, 16–26.
13.
FolkC. L., & RemingtonR. W. (1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 847–858.
14.
FolkC. L., RemingtonR. W., & JohnstonJ. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
15.
GibsonB. S., & KelseyE. M. (1998). Stimulus-driven attentional capture is contingent on attentional set for display wide visual features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,24, 699–706.
16.
GrattonG., ColesM. G. H., & DonchinE. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.
17.
GreenD. M., & SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics.New York: Wiley.
18.
GreenwaldA. G., DraineS.C., & AbramsR. L. (1996). Three cognitive markers of unconscious semantic activation.Science, 273, 1699–1702.
19.
HaysW. L. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.).Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
20.
HommelB. (1997). Interaction between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility.Psychological Research / Psychologische Forschung, 59, 248–260.
21.
JaskowskiP., SkalskaB., & VerlegerR. (2003). How the self controls its “automatic pilot” when processing subliminal information.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1–10.
22.
JaskowskiP., van der LubbeR. H. J., SchlotterbeckE., & VerlegerR. (2002). Traces left on visual selective attention by stimuli that are not consciously identified.Psychological Science, 13, 48–54.
23.
JonidesJ. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In LongJ. B., & BaddeleyA. D. (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
KahnemanD., & TreismanA. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In ParasuramanR., & DaviesD. R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26.
KlotzW., & NeumannO. (1999). Motor activation without conscious discrimination in metacontrast masking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 976–992.
27.
KlotzW., & WolffP. (1995). The effect of a masked stimulus on the response to the masking stimulus.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 58, 92–101.
28.
KundeW. (2003). Sequential modulations of stimulus-response correspondence effects depend on awareness of response conflict.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 198–205.
29.
KundeW., KieselA., & HoffmannJ. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition.Cognition, 88, 223–242.
30.
LambertA., NaikarN., McLachlanK., & AitkenV. (1999). A new component of visual orienting: Implicit effects of peripheral information and subthreshold cues on covert attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 321–340.
31.
LeutholdH., & KoppB. (1998). Mechanisms of priming by masked stimuli: Inferences from event-related brain potentials.Psychological Science, 9, 263–269.
32.
MattlerU. (2003). Priming of mental operations by masked stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 167–187.
33.
McCormickP. A. (1997). Orienting attention without awareness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 168–180.
NeumannO. (1984). Automatic processing: A review of recent findings and a plea for an old theory. In PrinzW., & SandersA. F. (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes (pp. 255–293). Berlin: Springer.
36.
NeumannO. (1989). Kognitive Vermittlung und direkte Parameterspezifikation. Zum Problem mentaler Representation in der Wahrnehmung [Cognitive mediation and direct parameter specification. On the problem of mental representation in perception].Sprache und Kognition, 8, 32–49.
37.
NeumannO. (1990). Direct parameter specification and the concept of perception.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 52, 207–215.
38.
NeumannO., EsselmannU., & KlotzW. (1993). Differential effects of visual-spatial attention on response latency and temporal-order judgment.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 26–34.
39.
NeumannO., & KlotzW. (1994). Motor responses to n on reportable, masked stimuli: Where is the limit of direct parameter specification? In UmiltáC., & MoscovitchM. (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 123–150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
PashlerH. (1998). The psychology of attention.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
PosnerM. I., & SnyderC. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In SolsoR. L. (Ed.), Information processing and cognition (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42.
RatcliffR. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics.Psychological Bulletin, 56, 446–461.
43.
ReganJ. (1981). Automaticity and learning: Effects of familiarity on naming letters.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 180–195.
44.
RemingtonR., FolkC. L., & McLeanJ. P. (2001). Contingent attentional capture or delayed allocation of attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 298–307.
45.
RogersR. D., & MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
46.
RossettiY. (1998). Implicit short-lived motor representations of space in brain damaged and healthy subjects.Consciousness and Cognition, 7, 520–558.
47.
ScharlauI. (2002). Leading, but not trailing, primes influence temporal order perception: Further evidence for an attentional account of perceptual latency priming.Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 1346–1360.
48.
ScharlauI. (in press). Evidence against response bias in temporal order tasks with attention manipulation by masked primes.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung.
49.
ScharlauI., & AnsorgeU. (2003). Direct parameter specification of an attention shift: Evidence from perceptual latency priming.Vision Research, 43, 1351–1363.
50.
ScharlauI., & NeumannO. (2003a). Perceptual latency priming by metacontrast-masked and unmasked stimuli: Evidence for an attentional interpretation.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 67, 184–196.
51.
ScharlauI., & NeumannO. (2003b). Temporal parameters and time course of perceptual latency priming.Acta Psychologica, 113, 185–203.
52.
SchmidtT. (2002). The finger in flight: Real-time motor control by visually masked color stimuli.Psychological Science, 13, 112–117.
53.
SteglichC, & NeumannO. (2000). Temporal, but not spatial, context modulates a masked prime's effect on temporal order judgment, but not on response latency.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 63, 36–47.
54.
SternbergS. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.
55.
StürmerB., LeutholdH., SoetensE., SchroterH., & SommerW. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.
56.
VorbergD., MattlerU., HeineckeA., SchmidtT., & SchwarzbachJ. (2003). Different time courses for visual perception and action priming.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100, 6275–6280.
57.
WickensC. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In ParasuramanR., & DaviesD. R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic Press.
58.
WolffP. (1989, April). Einfluß des maskierten Testreizes auf die Wahlreaktion auf den Metakontrast [Influence of the masked test stimulus on choice reactions to the metacontrast]. Paper presented at the 31st congress of Experimental Psychology, Bamberg, Germany.
59.
WolffP. (1997, December). Einfluß der Alternativenzahl auf den Kongruenz-Inkongruenz-Effekt [Influence of the number of alternatives on the congruence-incongruence effect]. Paper presented at the workshop Motor Effects of Not Consciously Represented Stimuli, Bielefeld, Germany.
60.
WolffP., & RübelingH. (1994). Zur Verhaltenswirksamkeit eines nicht bewußt wahrgenommenen (maskierten) Signalreizes [On the behavioral impact of a not consciously perceived (masked) signal stimulus].Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 41, 678–697.
61.
YantisS., & EgethH. E. (1999). On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 661–676.
62.
YantisS., & JonidesJ. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601–621.
