Unconscious perception re-revisited: A comment on Merikle’s (1982) paper

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the fact that, contrary to the implications of a recent paper by Merikle (1982), the case for unconscious perception does not stand or fall with evidence from the backward masking studies that are the focus of his criticisms. In recent years, evidence from some 11 different areas of research has provided support for the view that the brain can respond to stimulus material of which the recipient remains unaware. A brief summary of some of this evidence is given here. In addition, it is argued that since the threshold-determining procedures employed in the backward masking studies were inappropriate anyway, Merikle’s particular criticisms of these procedures are irrelevant. © 1984, Psychonomic Society, Inc.. All rights reserved.