Manual and Verbal Responses to Completely Masked (Unreportable) Stimuli: Exploring Some Conditions for the Metacontrast Dissociation

Abstract

As reported by Neumann and Klotz [1994, in Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing Eds C Umiltà, M Moscovitch (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 123–150], a geometric shape masked by metacontrast can affect response latency (RT) even if it is not visible, ie if it yields a d' value of zero in a signal-detection (SD) task (metacontrast dissociation). In the initial study as well as in most subsequent experiments, the RT task was manual and the SD task was verbal. Hence tasks and output modes were confounded. In the present study, two experiments were conducted to find out which of these factors is responsible for the metacontrast dissociation. In experiment 1, participants performed an RT task in either a manual or a verbal output mode. In experiment 2, these output modes were compared in an SD task. Independently of output modes, the masked primes affected RT but could not be detected in the SD task. It is concluded that tasks, but not output modes, are crucial for the metacontrast dissociation. Implications for the mechanisms underlying the metacontrast dissociation and for the functional difference between judgments and responses are discussed.