François Stockart, Maor Schreiber, Pietro Amerio, David Carmel, Axel Cleeremans, Leon Y Deouell, Zoltan Dienes, Patxi Elosegi, Surya Gayet, Alon Goldstein, Adelina-Mihaela Halchin, Guido Hesselmann, Ruth Kimchi, Dominique Lamy, Leyla Loued-Khenissi, Sascha Meyen, Nitzan Micher, Michael Pitts, Roy Salomon, Kristian Sandberg, Iris A Schnepf, Aaron Schurger, David R Shanks, David Soto, Amir Tal, Darinka Trübutschek, Miguel A Vadillo, Simon van Gaal, Itay Yaron, Zefan Zheng, Nathan Faivre, Liad Mudrik
{"title":"Studying unconscious processing: Contention and consensus.","authors":"François Stockart, Maor Schreiber, Pietro Amerio, David Carmel, Axel Cleeremans, Leon Y Deouell, Zoltan Dienes, Patxi Elosegi, Surya Gayet, Alon Goldstein, Adelina-Mihaela Halchin, Guido Hesselmann, Ruth Kimchi, Dominique Lamy, Leyla Loued-Khenissi, Sascha Meyen, Nitzan Micher, Michael Pitts, Roy Salomon, Kristian Sandberg, Iris A Schnepf, Aaron Schurger, David R Shanks, David Soto, Amir Tal, Darinka Trübutschek, Miguel A Vadillo, Simon van Gaal, Itay Yaron, Zefan Zheng, Nathan Faivre, Liad Mudrik","doi":"10.1017/S0140525X25101489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The scope of unconscious processing has long been, and still remains, a hotly debated issue. This is driven in part by the current diversity of methods to manipulate and measure perceptual consciousness. Here, we provide ten recommendations and nine outstanding issues about designing experimental paradigms, analyzing data, and reporting the results of studies on unconscious processing. These were formed through dialogue among a group of researchers representing a range of theoretical backgrounds. We acknowledge that some of these recommendations naturally do not align with some existing approaches and are likely to change following theoretical and methodological development. Nevertheless, we hold that at this stage of the field they are instrumental in evoking a much-needed discussion about the norms of studying unconscious processes and helping researchers make more informed decisions when designing experiments. In the long run, we aim for this paper and future discussions around the outstanding issues to lead to a more convergent corpus of knowledge about the extent - and limits - of unconscious processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":8698,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-77"},"PeriodicalIF":16.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X25101489","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The scope of unconscious processing has long been, and still remains, a hotly debated issue. This is driven in part by the current diversity of methods to manipulate and measure perceptual consciousness. Here, we provide ten recommendations and nine outstanding issues about designing experimental paradigms, analyzing data, and reporting the results of studies on unconscious processing. These were formed through dialogue among a group of researchers representing a range of theoretical backgrounds. We acknowledge that some of these recommendations naturally do not align with some existing approaches and are likely to change following theoretical and methodological development. Nevertheless, we hold that at this stage of the field they are instrumental in evoking a much-needed discussion about the norms of studying unconscious processes and helping researchers make more informed decisions when designing experiments. In the long run, we aim for this paper and future discussions around the outstanding issues to lead to a more convergent corpus of knowledge about the extent - and limits - of unconscious processing.
期刊介绍:
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is a highly respected journal that employs an innovative approach called Open Peer Commentary. This format allows for the publication of noteworthy and contentious research from various fields including psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, and cognitive science. Each article is accompanied by 20-40 commentaries from experts across these disciplines, as well as a response from the author themselves. This unique setup creates a captivating forum for the exchange of ideas, critical analysis, and the integration of research within the behavioral and brain sciences, spanning topics from molecular neurobiology and artificial intelligence to the philosophy of the mind.