%0 Journal Article
%T Three Criteria for Evaluating High-Level Processing in Continuous Flash Suppression
%J -
%D 2019
%R https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.008
%X Many studies Sklar et al. present as evidence for high-level processing are breaking CFS studies (where the time for an invisible stimulus to overcome CFS is used as a measure for unconscious processing). An aspect that is rarely highlighted in this discussion on high-level processing during CFS is that it is currently debated whether this paradigm can provide evidence for unconscious processing at all [ 4 Hedger N. et al. Are visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical review and meta-analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms and 2696 observers. Psychol. Bull. 2016; 142 : 934-968 Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar , 5 Stein T. Sterzer P. Unconscious processing under interocular suppression: Getting the right measure. Front. Psychol. 2014; 5 : 387 Crossref PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar ]. Nevertheless, even if it is considered to be a valid tool, very few studies show high-level unconscious processing if the proper controls are included [ 6 Gayet S. et al. Breaking continuous flash suppression: competing for consciousness on the pre-semantic battlefield. Front. Psychol. 2014; 5 : 460 Crossref PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar ]. Indeed, we consider the dissociation approach where an implicit processing measure is contrasted with an explicit awareness measure to be the stronger, more valid approach to claim genuine unconscious processing (see [ 7 Hesselmann G. et al. Investigating masked priming along the vision-for-perception and vision-for-action dimensions of unconscious processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2018; 147 : 1641-1659 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar ] for an example)
%U https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(19)30031-2