phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | perception without awareness— “Many studies directed at demonstrating perception without awareness have relied on the dissociation paradigm (see Erdelyi, 1985, 1986).” | |
| claim-type | method— “The proposed approach provides a general conceptual/methodological framework for using the dissociation paradigm in studies directed at establishing unconscious processes.” | |
| method — evidence | — “conditions. Method Subjects. Twenty undergraduate students at the University of Waterloo participated in the experiment. All subjects had” | |
| mechanism | Instructing an observer to respond on a given stimulus dimension makes them exploit whatever conscious information about that dimension exists, which is why a direct task can never be beaten by an indirect one on conscious information.— “This assumption is based on the reasonable supposition that instructions directing an observer to respond on the basis of a particular stimulus dimension should optimize the observer's use of conscious information that may be available concerning this dimension.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Apparent direct/indirect dissociations can be manufactured by measuring the two indexes on different stimulus states and displays, so the gap reflects unequal discrimination difficulty rather than unconscious perception.— “These procedures do not satisfy either Criterion 2 or Criterion 3, because the direct and indirect indexes measured discriminative responding be tween different stimulus states under different display con ditions.” | mechanisms[1] |
| contradicts | Avant and Thieman (1985)— “One very straightforward implication of the present results is that they provide absolutely no support for Avant and Thieman's (1985) claim that judgment of apparent visual duration constitutes a sensitive measure of unconscious perception.” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Avant & Lyman (1975); Avant et al. (1975); Avant & Thieman (1985)— “On the other hand, the present results are completely inconsistent with the negative relation between stimulus familiarity and perceived duration reported by Avant and his colleagues (Avant & Lyman, 1975; Avant et al., 1975; Avant & Thieman, 1985).” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | the filled-duration illusion (Allan, 1979; Craig, 1973; Goldfarb & Goldstone, 1963)— “This finding represents a successful replication of the filled duration illusion.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | measure of perception - DIRECT: subjects are explicitly instructed to perform the discriminations of interest, which is what makes the measure direct— “is that they provide direct measures of perceptual process ing; that is to say, subjects are explicitly instructed to per form the discriminations of interest.” | senses[0] |
| sense | measure of perception - INDIRECT: one index assumed to indicate availability to awareness, the other assumed to indicate availability of the information regardless of awareness— “One index is assumed to indicate the availability of stimulus information to awareness or consciousness, and the second is assumed to indicate the availability of stimulus information” | senses[1] |
| sense | perception without awareness - A LITERATURE BLOCKED BY A DEFINITIONAL GAP RATHER THAN BY DATA: 'definitive results have been elusive IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENERAL CONSENSUS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ADEQUATE MEASURE OF AWARENESS.' The proposed fix does not settle the definition but MINIMISES what must be assumed - 'THE ONLY ASSUMPTION required by the proposed approach is that the sensitivity of direct discriminations to relevant conscious information is greater than or equal to' that of comparable indirect ones— “Although the logic underlying this paradigm is relatively straightforward, definitive results have been elusive in the absence of any general consensus as to what consti tutes an adequate measure of awareness. We propose an alternative approach that involves com parisons of the relative sensitivity of comparable direct and indirect indexes of… | senses[2] |
| control | presentation order and word length completely counterbalanced within each block of 24 trials — held — rules out order effects and word-length effects, either of which could produce a difference between the direct and indirect measures the paper is comparing— “As in Experiment 3, the ex perimental trials were presented in six blocks of24 trials, and within each trial block, presentation order and word length were completely counterbalanced.” | controls[0] |
| audit | direct measures —operationalised-as→ measure of awareness — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span discusses the ASSUMPTION that direct measures are exhaustive measures of awareness; operationalised-as is loose.— “This implied consequence of conscious percep tion can be true only if it is also assumed that direct mea sures provide an exhaustive measure of conscious perceptual experience. If this additional exhaustiveness assumption is not made, then there is no reason to expect that a direct measure of perception will always indicate greater than zero… | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | direct measures —operationalised-as→ measure of awareness — WHETHER THE EXHAUSTIVENESS ASSUMPTION IS MADE. Reading a null on a direct measure as an absence of awareness 'can be true ONLY IF it is also assumed that direct measures provide AN EXHAUSTIVE MEASURE of conscious perceptual experience. If this additional exhaustiveness assumption is not made, then there is no reason to expect that a direct measure of perception will always indicate greater than zero perceptual sensitivity, given conscious perceptual experience'— “This implied consequence of conscious percep tion can be true only if it is also assumed that direct mea sures provide an exhaustive measure of conscious perceptual experience. If this additional exhaustiveness assumption is not made, then there is no reason to expect that a direct measure of perception will always indicate greater than zero…— “If this additional exhaustiveness assumption is not made, then there is no reason to expect that a direct measure of perception will always indicate greater than zero perceptual sensitivity” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | direct measures —operationalised-as→ measure of awareness — A NULL MEASUREMENT MEANS ABSENCE ONLY IF THE INSTRUMENT IS EXHAUSTIVE, and the assumption is usually implicit - the paper calls it 'another IMPLICIT assumption underlying many recent…'. This is the 1988 psychology statement of the problem that a verifier cannot report absence.— “This implied consequence of conscious percep tion can be true only if it is also assumed that direct mea sures provide an exhaustive measure of conscious perceptual experience. If this additional exhaustiveness assumption is not made, then there is no reason to expect that a direct measure of perception will always indicate greater than zero… | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | direct measures —operationalised-as→ measure of awareness — 0.9— “This implied consequence of conscious percep tion can be true only if it is also assumed that direct mea sures provide an exhaustive measure of conscious perceptual experience. If this additional exhaustiveness assumption is not made, then there is no reason to expect that a direct measure of perception will always indicate greater than zero… | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | indirect measure —distinct-from→ direct measures — WHETHER THE TWO ARE MEASURED UNDER COMPARABLE CONDITIONS. Avant and Thieman (1985) claimed an indirect measure was MORE sensitive than a direct one; 'CONTRARY TO THIS CLAIM, WHEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT INDEXES ARE MEASURED UNDER COMPARABLE CONDITIONS', the indirect measure is LESS sensitive. The ordering of the two instruments reverses on the comparability of the conditions, not on the instruments— “The proposed approach is illustrated through an evaluation of Avant and Thieman's (1985) recent claim that an indirect measure of perception based on judgments of apparent visual duration provides a more sensitive indicator of perception than does a direct measure based on forced-choice recognition. Contrary to this claim, when direct…— “when direct and indirect in dexes are measured under comparable conditions” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | indirect measure —distinct-from→ direct measures — THE PUBLISHED CLAIM AND ITS REVERSAL USE THE SAME TWO MEASURES. What changed is that they were put on comparable footing - the same lesson as measuring candidates within one run rather than across runs.— “The proposed approach is illustrated through an evaluation of Avant and Thieman's (1985) recent claim that an indirect measure of perception based on judgments of apparent visual duration provides a more sensitive indicator of perception than does a direct measure based on forced-choice recognition. Contrary to this claim, when direct… | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | indirect measure —distinct-from→ direct measures — 0.85— “The proposed approach is illustrated through an evaluation of Avant and Thieman's (1985) recent claim that an indirect measure of perception based on judgments of apparent visual duration provides a more sensitive indicator of perception than does a direct measure based on forced-choice recognition. Contrary to this claim, when direct… | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the accumulated literature on perception without awareness: the paper states definitive results have been elusive in the absence of consensus on what constitutes an adequate measure of awareness— “Although the logic underlying this paradigm is relatively straightforward, definitive results have been elusive in the absence of any general consensus as to what consti tutes an adequate measure of awareness.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — comparing results across studies that used different awareness measures: the paper states it is impossible to know whether those measures are adequate or comparable— “However, without a general theoretical framework and sufficient empirical data to guide the selection of measures, it is impossible to know if these different measures of conscious aware ness are either adequate or comparable” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim that a direct discrimination reflects intentional responding: the paper states an observer's intentions cannot be directly observed or measured— “The problem with Holender's po sition is that the intentions of an observer cannot be directly observed or measured.” | limitations[5] |
| replication | contested | |
| limitation | The empirical conclusion may not generalise beyond the specific display and stimulus parameters used.— “Although this conclusion may be limited to the display and stimulus parameters used in the present studies” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Because the indirect measure was the less sensitive one, the experiments themselves settle nothing about unconscious perception.— “Given that the sensitivity of the indirect measure in both studies was less than the sensitivity of the comparable direct measures, the present results are inconclusive with regard to unconscious… | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The paper cannot explain why its familiarity/duration correlation runs opposite to Avant's, and leaves that to future work. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The field's results are stated to be inconclusive because it has no agreed measure of its central term, not because the experiments are poor. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Whether the available measures are even comparable to one another is stated to be unknowable without a framework that does not exist. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The opposing position is rejected on the ground that the thing it depends on cannot be observed. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The paper's own diagnosis is that decades of experimental work could not settle the question because the field had no agreed measure of the thing being denied. An empirical programme is stalled by a definitional gap, and the remedy offered is not a better definition but a weaker assumption - an ordering between two sensitivities rather than a claim that either instrument is complete. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | The paper's central deduction is that unconscious perception is established as soon as an indirect measure is absolutely more sensitive to a stimulus dimension than a comparable direct measure. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | To demonstrate unconscious perception it suffices that the indirect measure be more sensitive than a comparable direct one, even when the direct measure's sensitivity is above zero. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Experiment 1 replicated the filled-duration illusion: displays containing a word or a nonword were judged longer than blank displays of identical physical duration. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Words were in general judged longer than nonwords, a positive relation between familiarity and perceived duration. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The duration-judgment measure is blind to lexical status at 33 ms exposure, showing no word/nonword difference at all. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Lengthening exposure only strengthens the positive familiarity effect rather than reversing its direction. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Performance on the direct lexical decision task was significantly better than on the indirect duration judgment task. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Detection in Experiment 4 gave the same ordering: a direct measure indexed perception more sensitively than a comparable indirect duration measure. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| quantity | t(19) = 12.0, p < .0001 — size of the filled-duration effect for word-blank pairs in Experiment 1 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | F(l,38) = 5.10, P < .05 — the Experiment 3 main effect of task showing lexical decision outperformed duration judgment Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | F(1,18) = 48.32, P < .001 — the Experiment 4 main effect of task, detection versus duration judgment Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | t(39) = 3.23, p < .01 — Experiment 3 direct lexical decision accuracy above chance at 33 ms exposure Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 60% — accuracy of the indirect preference measure in Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc, against 48% for the direct recognition test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | Twenty — number of undergraduate subjects run in Experiment 1 (and again in Experiments 2 and 4) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | exposure duration (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | stimulus familiarity (word vs. nonword) (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | proportion of "longer" responses (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| definition | indirect measure of perception Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | dissociation paradigm Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | exclusiveness assumption Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | exhaustiveness assumption Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | filled-duration illusion Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| concept | dissociation paradigm Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | measure of awareness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | direct measures Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | exhaustiveness assumption Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | null sensitivity Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | indirect measure Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| t-test t | as written: [t(19) = 12.0, p < .0001] Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| ANOVA F | as written: 2 X 2 analysis of vari ance Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| ANOVA F | as written: 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| p-value p | as written: p < .05 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| mean | as written: mean propor tions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824