Does response inhibition occur unconsciously? A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
Qin Huang, Ruichen Jiang, Xuechen Mao, Jilong Shi, Anmin Li
Consciousness and Cognition September 9, 2023 DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2023.103570 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Meta-analysis Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 521 |
| Population | Participants across 34 studies (16 articles) on unconscious response inhibition |
| Keywords | Humans Bayes theorem Consciousness Reaction time Inhibition, psychological Unconscious, psychology Priming effect Response inhibition Masked go/no-go task Three-level bayesian meta-analysis |
| Key findings | The authors report only inconclusive evidence of a reaction-time slowing effect after excluding studies with conscious no-go experience (mean difference 8.47 ms, BF10 = 2.71) and a small, uncertain difference in sensitivity to masked stimuli between the masked go/no-go task and objective awareness tasks (mean difference 0.09, BF10 = 2.39). They conclude there is a lack of solid evidence for unconscious response inhibition, while emphasizing that this does not rule out the possibility and that more rigorous methods are needed. |
Abstract
Consciousness is traditionally considered necessary for response inhibition. Recently, researchers have attempted to explore unconscious response inhibition using the masked go/no-go task. However, their findings were controversial and might have been confounded by the methodology employed. Therefore, we used a three-level Bayesian meta-analysis to provide the first systematic overview of the field of unconscious response inhibition. Finally, 34 studies in 16 articles with a total sample size of 521 were included. In summary, we found only inconclusive evidence of a reaction time slowing effect after excluding studies with conscious no-go experience (mean difference = 8.47 ms, BF10 = 2.71). In addition, the overall effect size of the difference in sensitivity to masked stimuli between the masked go/no-go task and the objective awareness task was small and uncertain (mean difference = 0.09, BF10 = 2.39). Taken together, these findings indicate a lack of solid evidence for the occurrence of unconscious response inhibition. Our findings do not oppose the possibility of unconscious response inhibition, but rather emphasize the need for more rigorous research methodologies in this field.
Citations in the library
Cites 4
- Number processing outside awareness? Systematically testing sensitivities of direct and indirect measures of consciousness. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics August 2021
- Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron April 28, 2011
- The flexible nature of unconscious cognition. PLoS One 2011
- Unconscious activation of the prefrontal no-go network. Journal of Neuroscience March 17, 2010