Skip to content

Implicit knowledge: new perspectives on unconscious processes.

D L Schacter

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America December 1, 1992 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.89.23.11113 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Review Peer reviewed
Population Brain-damaged patients and normal subjects, including amnesic patients, patients with visual cortex damage, and patients with prosopagnosia
Key findings Dissociations between implicit and explicit knowledge appear across domains, tasks, and materials in both brain-damaged patients and healthy people. The authors argue that these dissociations reflect the ordinary computations of the brain rather than affectively charged unconscious processes of the kind invoked by psychodynamic or Freudian theorists, and they weigh whether a single conscious-experience mechanism or multiple domain-specific systems best explain the findings.

Abstract

Recent evidence from cognitive science and neuroscience indicates that brain-damaged patients and normal subjects can exhibit nonconscious or implicit knowledge of stimuli that they fail to recollect consciously or perceive explicitly. Dissociations between implicit and explicit knowledge, which have been observed across a variety of domains, tasks, and materials, raise fundamental questions about the nature of perception, memory, and consciousness. This article provides a selective review of relevant evidence and considers such phenomena as priming and implicit memory in amnesic patients and normal subjects, perception without awareness and "blindsight" in patients with damage to visual cortex, and nonconscious recognition of familiar faces in patients with facial-recognition deficits (prosopagnosia). A variety of theoretical approaches to implicit/explicit dissociations are considered. One view is that all of the various dissociations can be attributed to disruption or disconnection of a common mechanism underlying conscious experience; an alternative possibility is that each dissociation requires a separate explanation in terms of domain-specific processes and systems. More generally, it is concluded that rather than reflecting the operation of affectively charged unconscious processes of the kind invoked by psychodynamic or Freudian theorists, dissociations between implicit and explicit knowledge are a natural consequence of the ordinary computations of the brain.