A statistical model for discriminating between subliminal and near-liminal performance

The concept of a psychophysical threshold is foundational in perceptual psychology. In practice, thresholds are operationalized as stimulus values that lead to a fairly high level of performance such as .75 or .707 in two-choice tasks. These operationalizations are not useful for assessing subliminality—the state in which a stimulus is so weak that performance is at chance. We present a hierarchical Bayesian model of performance that incorporates a threshold that divides subliminal from near-liminal performance. The model provides a convenient means to measure at-chance thresholds and therefore is useful for testing theories of subliminal priming. The hierarchical nature of the model is critical for efficient analysis as strength is pooled across people and stimulus values. A comparison to Rasch psychometric models is provided.

[1]  J. Eastwood,et al.  Perception without awareness: perspectives from cognitive psychology , 2001, Cognition.

[2]  S. Chib,et al.  Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data , 1993 .

[3]  D. Holender,et al.  Unconscious perception: The need for a paradigm shift , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Jeffrey N Rouder,et al.  Detecting chance: A solution to the null sensitivity problem in subliminal priming , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  J. Hoffmann,et al.  Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition , 2003, Cognition.

[6]  S C Draine,et al.  Replicable unconscious semantic priming. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  A G Greenwald,et al.  Unconscious processing of dichoptically masked words , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[8]  P. Merikle,et al.  Priming with and without awareness , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  M. Abramowitz,et al.  Handbook of Mathematical Functions With Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables (National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series No. 55) , 1965 .

[10]  I. Biederman,et al.  Subliminal visual priming , 1997, Neuroscience Letters.

[11]  Joachim H. Ahrens,et al.  Computer methods for sampling from gamma, beta, poisson and bionomial distributions , 1974, Computing.

[12]  Richard L. Abrams,et al.  Subliminal words activate semantic categories (not automated motor responses) , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  E. Reingold,et al.  Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  E. Bernat,et al.  Unconscious perception: A model-based approach to method and evidence , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Affect, cognition, and awareness: affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[17]  U. Mattler.  On the locus of priming and inverse priming effects , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  B. Reynvoet,et al.  Hemispheric differences between left and right number representations: effects of conscious and unconscious priming , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  M. Rudd.  A neural timing model of visual threshold , 1996 .

[20]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[21]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  J. Roufs,et al.  Dynamic properties of vision. VI. Stochastic threshold fluctuations and their effect on flash-to-flicker sensitivity ratio. , 1974, Vision research.

[23]  Jun Lu,et al.  An introduction to Bayesian hierarchical models with an application in the theory of signal detection , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  L. Tierney.  Markov Chains for Exploring Posterior Distributions , 1994 .

[25]  L. Devroye.  Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation , 1986 .

[26]  R. Verleger,et al.  How the Self Controls Its Automatic Pilot when Processing Subliminal Information , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  Adrian F. M. Smith,et al.  Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities , 1990 .

[28]  J. Schwarzbach,et al.  Different time courses for visual perception and action priming , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  A. Watson.  Probability summation over time , 1979, Vision Research.

[30]  Michael S. Pratte.  Subliminal priming as a task-characteristic artifact , 2007 .

[31]  Haluk Ogmen,et al.  Unconscious priming by color and form: Different processes and levels , 2004, Consciousness and Cognition.

[32]  Thomas H. Carr,et al.  Task-induced strategies and near-threshold priming: Conscious influences on unconscious perception. , 1989 .

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

[34]  L. M. M.-T..  Theory of Probability , 1929, Nature.

[35]  Jun S. Liu,et al.  Generalised Gibbs sampler and multigrid Monte Carlo for Bayesian computation , 2000 .

[36]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Parallel psychometric functions from a set of independent detectors , 1975 .

[37]  Martin Eimer,et al.  Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  M. M. Taylor,et al.  PEST: Efficient Estimates on Probability Functions , 1967 .

[39]  Jacob Nachmias,et al.  On the psychometric function for contrast detection , 1981, Vision Research.

[40]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Long-term semantic memory versus contextual memory in unconscious number processing. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.