Conscious and Unconscious Perception: Experiments on Visual Masking and Word Recognition

Anthony J. Marcel · Cognitive Psychology · 1983 · cognitive-psychology · 10.1016/0010-0285(83)90009-9 · record marcel1983-masked-priming
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type could also read as 'critique' — the paper is explicitly framed as an attack on the Identity Assumption of information-processing accounts ('the most satisfactory account of the present experiments, then, is that pattern masking does not impede visual processing but rather impedes the to consciousness of what is masked'), but the substance is an empirical demonstration that X occurs, so 'existence' was chosen. Replication status = contested is grounded in the paper's own footnote 4: Fowler, Wolford, Slade and Tassinary (1981) successfully replicated Experiments 1 and 4, while Creighton obtained 'very small and variable nonconscious priming effects' and Evett's attempt 'was unsuccessful'. The OCR of this PDF is badly column-scrambled in the abstract and figure captions, so no quotes were taken from those regions. 2026-08-19, 2026-08-25 and 2026-08-26 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 1 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.findings[1].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.

1 quote on this page breaks a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated a word at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.

2 quotes on this page were cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. They are verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
false-discovery-rate 6 fields · awareness 3 fields · threshold 2 fields · facilitation 2 fields · statistical-significance 2 fields · masking 2 fields · and 1 more →

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 11 concept tags on this paper, 8 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 8 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

masked priming unconscious perception visual masking detection semantic judgments masking iconic memory Central Masking Peripheral masking pattern-masking energy-masking unconscious awareness lexical decision facilitation prime threshold ANOVA analysis of variance chi-square chi square false-discovery-rate multiple comparisons hypothesis-testing test the hypotheses p-value statistical-significance variance behavioural-experiment

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90009-9. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 3 · concepts 8 · content_tags 7 · controls 2 · limitations 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 5

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no mechanisms. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	semantic processing of pattern-masked words without awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment	`method`		the paper's words
limitations	The null effect of repetition on the semantics of forced guesses may reflect an insensitive measure rather than a real absence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The reported phenomena may depend on unexplored experimental factors, since some replication attempts failed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Conclusions comparing graphic and semantic judgements rest on an unverified assumption that the two similarity scales are equivalent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
controls	thirty-six EXTRA pairs used for practice, distributed in the same proportions as the experimental pairs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that practice on an unrepresentative set biases the strategy subjects bring to the experiment · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	ninety practice trials before each experimental session Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that performance early in a session reflects unfamiliarity with the procedure · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	detection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: detection	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	semantic judgments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic judgments	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: masking	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	iconic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: iconic memory	`concepts[6]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	Central Masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Central Masking	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	Peripheral masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Peripheral masking	`concepts[8]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	pattern-masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pattern-masking	`concepts[9]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	energy-masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: energy-masking	`concepts[10]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE ORDERING RESULT, AND IT RUNS THE WRONG WAY FOR THE STANDARD ACCOUNT: `Quotation withheld` The received view was that masking interrupts the icon and that without the icon there is nothing left to analyse for meaning - which predicts semantic judgments failing first, or at latest with the rest. They are the most robust of the three. Three measures, one manipulation, a fixed order, and the order is the argument Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	AND THE CONTROL IS WHAT MAKES IT A DISSOCIATION RATHER THAN A FAILED MASK: `Quotation withheld` `They could not see it and were primed anyway` invites `then your mask did not work`. Marcel's reply is a second mask that also abolishes awareness and also abolishes the priming - awareness held constant at zero, priming moved from 56 msec to 4. Compare erb2019 and eckstein2007 in this corpus: the same manoeuvre, thirty years later, still being reinvented Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	THE POSITION BEING OVERTURNED, STATED IN ITS OWN WORDS BEFORE IT IS DISMANTLED: `Quotation withheld` Worth holding as a record of what the field believed in 1983, and worth marking as a view the paper REJECTS - a triple built from this sentence would enter the graph asserting the opposite of the record's finding, which is the fault I dropped an edge for on eckstein2007 this afternoon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	`Central Masking` / `Peripheral masking` - DISTINGUISHED BY AN ENUMERATION OF PROPERTIES, NOT BY A DEFINITION. `Several characteristics distinguish Peripheral and Central Masking` - then four contrasts run in parallel across the two, and the pair is never given a mechanism. The dichoptic test is the one that separates them cleanly: Central `is possible both monoptically and dichoptically`, Peripheral `cannot be obtained dichoptically`. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	`pattern-masking` / `energy-masking` - TWO PROCEDURES THAT ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE, AND THE PAPER USES THE DIFFERENCE TO EXPLAIN A LITERATURE. `Quotation withheld`. The second clause is a NULL RESULT about a method, which is why the edge below is a contrast and not a causal claim. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	0.9	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Wickens (1972) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Turvey's (1973) distinction between Peripheral and Central Masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Shallice (1972) and Morton (1970, 1979a) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	detection —distinct-from→ semantic judgments Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: A DISSOCIATION STATED AS AN ORDERING, WHICH IS STRONGER THAN A DIFFERENCE. Not 'semantic judgments were better' - a fixed sequence in which the three measures fail as one parameter is turned down. Weight 0.95: both endpoints are named as words, the sentence is a result rather than a framing, and the relation asserted is exactly distinctness - if detection and semantic judgment drew on one representation they could not come apart in a repeatable order. This is the rare case where the sentence carrying the mechanism also carries the edge, and it does so because the author chose to state the finding as a list of three named measures. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span gives the order in which judgments fail as SOA is reduced; distinct-from is loose. also in: detection · semantic judgments	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	Central Masking —distinct-from→ Peripheral masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: 'Several characteristics distinguish' - asserted outright and then itemised four ways, so weight 1.0. also in: Central Masking · Peripheral masking	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	pattern-masking —contrasted-with→ energy-masking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: NOT typed 'causes'. The clause about energy-masking is a FAILURE to produce an effect - 'fails to produce unconscious priming effects' - and a null result is not a causal relation. The contrast is what the paper asserts; the null sits in this note where it cannot be read as a mechanism. also in: pattern-masking · energy-masking	`concept_edges[2]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-square Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-square	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	false-discovery-rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: false-discovery-rate	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	hypothesis-testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hypothesis-testing	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: p-value	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: variance	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

content_tags.findings[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.