Studying unconscious processing: Contention and consensus.
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
The Behavioral and brain sciences July 22, 2025 DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X25101489 via PubMed
Summary
The scope of unconscious processing remains hotly debated, driven by diverse methods for manipulating and measuring perceptual awareness. Through dialogue among researchers with varied theoretical backgrounds, ten recommendations and nine outstanding issues are provided for designing experimental paradigms, analyzing data, and reporting results. These guidelines aim to evoke discussion about norms in studying unconscious processes and help researchers make informed decisions. While some recommendations may not align with existing approaches and will likely evolve, they are intended to foster a more convergent understanding of the extent and limits of unconscious processing.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Review Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Unconscious processing Awareness measures Best practices Perceptual awareness Recommendations |
| Citations | 20 |
| Key finding | Ten recommendations and nine outstanding issues are provided to improve experimental design, data analysis, and reporting in studies of unconscious processing. |
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.