What We Talk about When We Talk about Unconscious Processing - A Plea for Best Practices

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Neuroscience
• Research Methodology

Background:

• The experimental study of unconscious processing exhibits considerable diversity in methods, measures, and statistical analyses.
• Variability in assessing stimulus awareness across studies complicates direct comparisons.
• Flexible methodological choices may introduce bias, potentially overestimating the prevalence or impact of unconscious processes.

Purpose of the Study:

• To highlight the heterogeneity in the field of experimental unconscious processing research.
• To argue that methodological diversity limits the comparability of findings.
• To propose the adoption of standardized

Main Methods:

• Review and synthesis of existing methodologies in unconscious processing research.
• Critical analysis of the implications of diverse research practices.
• Comparative assessment of different stimulus awareness assessment techniques.

Main Results:

• Significant diversity exists in methods, measures, statistical analyses, and concepts within the field.
• Comparisons between studies are limited, particularly when stimulus awareness is measured inconsistently.
• Flexible methodological choices are likely to lead to an overestimation of unconscious processing effects.

Conclusions:

• The field requires greater standardization to improve the reliability and comparability of research findings.
• Introduction of "best practices" is advocated, drawing parallels with established standards in fMRI and EEG research.
• Future research should focus on implementing standardized protocols to mitigate bias and enhance the validity of conclusions regarding unconscious processing.