Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression

In general, stimuli that are familiar and recognizable have an advantage of predominance during binocular rivalry. Recent research has demonstrated that familiar and recognizable stimuli such as upright faces and words in a native language could break interocular suppression faster than their matched controls. In this study, a visible word prime was presented binocularly then replaced by a high-contrast dynamic noise pattern presented to one eye and either a semantically related or unrelated word was introduced to the other eye. We measured how long it took for target words to break from suppression. To investigate word-parts priming, a second experiment also included word pairs that had overlapping subword fragments. Results from both experiments consistently show that semantically related words and words that shared subword fragments were faster to gain dominance compared to unrelated words, suggesting that words, even when interocularly suppressed and invisible, can benefit from semantic and subword priming.

[1]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Binocular Rivalry and Visual Awareness in Human Extrastriate Cortex , 1998, Neuron.

[2]  R. Blake,et al.  Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: out of sight, out of mind. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Helen L Jamison,et al.  Morphology and the internal structure of words. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  J B Poline,et al.  Letter Binding and Invariant Recognition of Masked Words , 2004, Psychological science.

[5]  D. Besner,et al.  Visual word recognition: a multistage activation model. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Imaging unconscious semantic priming , 1998, Nature.

[7]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Unconscious semantic priming extends to novel unseen stimuli , 2001, Cognition.

[8]  J. H. Neely Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. , 1991 .

[9]  H. Toch,et al.  Semantic, syntactic, and associative context effects in a stereoscopic rivalry situation. , 1968, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[10]  Richard N. Henson,et al.  Activity in Face-Responsive Brain Regions is Modulated by Invisible, Attended Faces: Evidence from Masked Priming , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[11]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Michele T. Diaz,et al.  Unconscious Word Processing Engages a Distributed Network of Brain Regions , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  J B Poline,et al.  Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[15]  Adriana de Pesters,et al.  Psychophysical magic: rendering the "invisible" visible , 2009 .

[16]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Visual competition , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[17]  Sheng He,et al.  Processing of Invisible Stimuli: Advantage of Upright Faces and Recognizable Words in Overcoming Interocular Suppression , 2007, Psychological science.

[18]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Cerebral bases of subliminal and supraliminal priming during reading. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  S. Dehaene,et al.  A direct intracranial record of emotions evoked by subliminal words. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Sheng He,et al.  Dynamics of processing invisible faces in the brain: Automatic neural encoding of facial expression information , 2009, NeuroImage.

[21]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[22]  T. McNamara Semantic Priming: Perspectives from Memory and Word Recognition , 2005 .

[23]  C. Koch,et al.  Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[24]  F. Fang,et al.  Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  Jonathan Winawer,et al.  Gender aftereffects in the perception of silhouetted face profiles , 2010 .

[26]  David Alais,et al.  Increasing depth of binocular rivalry suppression along two visual pathways , 2003, Vision Research.

[27]  R. Blake,et al.  Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression. , 2007, Emotion.

[28]  Richard L. Abrams,et al.  Three Cognitive Markers of Unconscious Semantic Activation , 1996, Science.

[29]  Richard L. Abrams,et al.  Parts Outweigh the Whole (Word) in Unconscious Analysis of Meaning , 2000, Psychological science.

[30]  R. Blake Dichoptic reading: The role of meaning in binocular rivalry , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Depth of interocular suppression associated with continuous flash suppression, flash suppression, and binocular rivalry. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[32]  Fang Fang,et al.  A gender- and sexual orientation-dependent spatial attentional effect of invisible images , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  Alan W Freeman,et al.  Multistage model for binocular rivalry. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  J. Bowers,et al.  Orthographic, phonological, and articulatory contributions to masked letter and word priming. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Sheng He,et al.  Cortical Responses to Invisible Faces: Dissociating Subsystems for Facial-Information Processing , 2006, Current Biology.

[36]  Jasna Martinovic,et al.  Integration of ordinal and metric cues in depth processing. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[37]  G. Rees,et al.  Fine-scale activity patterns in high-level visual areas encode the category of invisible objects. , 2008, Journal of vision.