Using EEG to test if spoken image labels propel subliminal images into consciousness

This preregistered study investigated whether linguistic information can influence low-level visual perception. We argue that many previous studies supporting this view have significant shortcomings. Specifically, these studies conflate measures of objective performance with those of subjective experience, and cannot exclude the possibility that their observed effects might have been mediated by post-sensory processes instead (e.g., semantics, memory). To address these issues, our paradigm combined elements from two published studies by Sekar et al. (2011) and Lupyan and Ward (2013). Participants (N = 19) observed and rated visual targets of fixed intensity corresponding to their 50% identification threshold; visual targets were preceded by nonpredictive speech cues which matched or mismatched the target. Participants carried out an identification task and rated their subjective experience (“didn’t see”, “couldn’t identify”, “unsure”, and “sure”), while event-related potentials were recorded. We found that identification of targets that remained unseen (“didn’t see”) was not facilitated by congruent cues, but was impaired by incongruent cues. In addition, cue congruence did not affect the relative frequency of nonconscious (“didn’t see”) to conscious visual experiences, nor did it affect the amplitude of the Visual Awareness Negativity, an electrophysiological correlate of visual awareness. The results indicate that language cues did not enhance the processing of subliminal visual inputs, nor boost them into conscious experience. This outcome aligns with accounts of low-level perception that exclude the influence of linguistic or conceptual knowledge.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7erj2_v1
Primary Topic
EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Using EEG to test if spoken image labels propel subliminal images into consciousness

Chris Davis, April Ching, Jeesun Kim
EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
article

Using EEG to test if spoken image labels propel subliminal images into consciousness

Chris Davis, April Ching, Jeesun Kim
article en

Abstract

This preregistered study investigated whether linguistic information can influence low-level visual perception. We argue that many previous studies supporting this view have significant shortcomings. Specifically, these studies conflate measures of objective performance with those of subjective experience, and cannot exclude the possibility that their observed effects might have been mediated by post-sensory processes instead (e.g., semantics, memory). To address these issues, our paradigm combined elements from two published studies by Sekar et al. (2011) and Lupyan and Ward (2013). Participants (N = 19) observed and rated visual targets of fixed intensity corresponding to their 50% identification threshold; visual targets were preceded by nonpredictive speech cues which matched or mismatched the target. Participants carried out an identification task and rated their subjective experience (“didn’t see”, “couldn’t identify”, “unsure”, and “sure”), while event-related potentials were recorded. We found that identification of targets that remained unseen (“didn’t see”) was not facilitated by congruent cues, but was impaired by incongruent cues. In addition, cue congruence did not affect the relative frequency of nonconscious (“didn’t see”) to conscious visual experiences, nor did it affect the amplitude of the Visual Awareness Negativity, an electrophysiological correlate of visual awareness. The results indicate that language cues did not enhance the processing of subliminal visual inputs, nor boost them into conscious experience. This outcome aligns with accounts of low-level perception that exclude the influence of linguistic or conceptual knowledge.

Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.