The unconscious integration advantage of self-related information: Evidence from the subliminal same−different task paradigm

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1609

Abstract

Abstract:

When processing large volumes of information, only a limited subset can be consciously integrated into new representations, while other critical information must be unconsciously integrated to support survival and environmental adaptation. Previous research suggests that self-related information serves as a “binding glue,” thereby facilitating integration between stimuli with consistent advantages at the perceptual and semantic levels. However, whether or not self-related information can be integrated unconsciously remains unclear. Addressing this issue could deepen understanding of the mechanisms underlying self-related information integration. Accordingly, the current study utilized three experiments to systematically examine the unconscious integration advantage of self-related information, focusing on the integration window size and specific levels of representation at which this advantage occurred.

This study adopted the recently developed subliminal same?different task as an effective tool for assessing unconscious integration performance, in conjunction with the self-perceptual matching task (SPMT) to investigate the unconscious integration mechanisms of self-related information. The subliminal same?different task simultaneously presented two primes and two targets, with the congruency effect between the prime?target relationship used to assess unconscious integration. Experiment 1 (N = 32) examined the congruency effect of neutral geometric shapes across three spatial integration window (SIW) sizes (1.53°, 4.02°, 6.51°). Experiment 2 (N = 32) introduced social information (self, friend, none) to explore its influence on the congruency effect, while controlling for stimulus familiarity using SPMT. Experiment 3 (N = 32) further examined SIW that showed self-related congruency advantages in Experiment 2, dissociating perceptual similarity to examine the effects of social information (self, friend) and integration levels (perceptual representation level, semantic representation level) on the congruency effect.

Experiment 1 revealed that neutral shapes exhibited a congruency effect solely at the 1.53° SIW, indicating that low-level unconscious perceptual integration occurs only at this SIW. In Experiment 2, significant congruency effects were observed for all levels of social information at the 1.53° SIW, with no differences among them. At the 4.02° SIW, only self-related shapes presented a significant congruency effect, while no congruency effects were significant at the 6.51° SIW. These findings suggest that the involvement of social information modulates congruency effects over a considerably broad SIW (4.02°), while self-related information specifically exhibits unconscious integration advantages at the 4.02° SIW. Experiment 3 further demonstrated that this advantage effect did not depend on perceptual similarity but can occur at the perceptual and semantic representation levels.

In summary, the current study was the first to identify an unconscious integration advantage for self-related information. These findings support the windows of integration (WOI) hypothesis, suggesting that the unconscious integration advantage of self-related information is constrained by the SIW size and can occur at the early perceptual and late conceptual stages of information processing.

Key words: self-prioritization effect, unconscious integration, subliminal same?different task, self-perceptual matching task, spatial integration window

WANG Jixian, LIU Minghui. (2025). The unconscious integration advantage of self-related information: Evidence from the subliminal same−different task paradigm. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(9), 1609-1621.

Figures/Tables 5

Figure 1. Flowchart of a single trial in the Same-Different Judgment Task.

Table1 SIW and side length of the enclosing Square(°)

SIW	Side length
1.53	0.51
4.02	0.79
6.51	1.02

Figure 2. Bar chart of Reaction Time Results in the Same-Different Judgment Task for Experiment 1.

Figure 3. Bar chart of Reaction Time Results in the Same-Different Judgment Task for Experiment 2.

Figure 4. Bar chart of reaction time results in the Same-Different Judgment Task for Experiment 3.

References 51

[1]	Alexopoulos, T., Muller, D., Ric, F., & Marendaz, C. (2012). I, me, mine: Automatic attentional capture by self‐related stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(6), 770-779.
[2]	Bai, W., Liu, A., & Liu, M. (2021). Self-related processing in adult survivors of childhood psychological maltreatment. Journal of Psychological Science, 44(2), 473-480.
[3]	Bengtsson, S. L., Dolan, R. J., & Passingham, R. E. (2011). Priming for self-esteem influences the monitoring of one's own performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(4), 417-425. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq048 pmid: 20551143
[4]	Biafora, M., & Schmidt, T. (2020). Induced dissociations: Opposite time courses of priming and masking induced by custom-made mask-contrast functions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(3), 1333-1354.
[5]	Biderman, N., & Mudrik, L. (2018). Evidence for implicit—but not unconscious—processing of object-scene relations. Psychological Science, 29(2), 266-277. doi: 10.1177/0956797617735745 pmid: 29283750
[6]	Bola, M., Paź, M., Doradzińska, Ł., & Nowicka, A. (2021). The self-face captures attention without consciousness: Evidence from the N2pc ERP component analysis. Psychophysiology, 58(4), e13759.
[7]	Cho, S., & He, S. (2019). Size-invariant but location-specific object-viewpoint adaptation in the absence of awareness. Cognition, 192, 104035.
[8]	Dehaene, S., Changeux, J.-P., & Naccache, L. (2011). The global neuronal workspace model of conscious access:From neuronal architectures to clinical applications. In S. Dehaene, & Y. Christen, (Eds.), Characterizing Consciousness: From Cognition to the Clinic? (pp. 55-84). Berlin, Heidelberg.
[9]	Dixon, M. L., Fox, K. C., & Christoff, K. (2014). A framework for understanding the relationship between externally and internally directed cognition. Neuropsychologia, 62, 321-330. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.024 pmid: 24912071
[10]	Doradzińska, Ł., Wójcik, M. J., Paź, M., Nowicka, M. M., Nowicka, A., & Bola, M. (2020). Unconscious perception of one's own name modulates amplitude of the P3B ERP component. Neuropsychologia, 147, 107564.
[11]	Geng, H., Zhang, S., Li, Q., Tao, R., & Xu, S. (2012). Dissociations of subliminal and supraliminal self-face from other-face processing: Behavioral and ERP evidence. Neuropsychologia, 50(12), 2933-2942. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.07.040 pmid: 22898645
[12]	Hirschhorn, R., Kahane, O., Gur-Arie, I., Faivre, N., & Mudrik, L. (2021). Windows of integration hypothesis revisited. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 617187.
[13]	Hu, C.-P., Lan, Y., Macrae, C. N., & Sui, J. (2020). Good me bad me: Prioritization of the good-self during perceptual decision-making. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), 20.
[14]	Kaida, K., & Abe, T. (2018). Attentional lapses are reduced by repeated stimuli having own-name during a monotonous task. PloS One, 13(3), e0194065.
[15]	Kiefer, M., Adams, S. C., & Zovko, M. (2012). Attentional sensitization of unconscious visual processing: Top-down influences on masked priming. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 50-61. doi: 10.2478/v10053-008-0102-4 pmid: 22419966
[16]	Kiefer, M., & Martens, U. (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: Task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 464-489.
[17]	Lamme, V. A., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2000). The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends in Neurosciences, 23(11), 571-579. doi: 10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01657-x pmid: 11074267
[18]	Lee, N. A., Martin, D., & Sui, J. (2023). Accentuate the positive: Evidence that context dependent self-reference drives self-bias. Cognition, 240, 105600.
[19]	Lin, S.-H., & Yeh, Y.-Y. (2014). Attentional load and the consciousness of one’s own name. Consciousness and Cognition, 26, 197-203.
[20]	Lin, Z., & Murray, S. O. (2014). Unconscious processing of an abstract concept. Psychological Science, 25(1), 296-298. doi: 10.1177/0956797613504964 pmid: 24285433
[21]	Liu, C., Sun, Z., Jou, J., Cui, Q., Zhao, G., Qiu, J., & Tu, S. (2016). Unconscious processing of facial emotional valence relation: Behavioral evidence of integration between subliminally perceived stimuli. PloS One, 11(9), e0162689.
[22]	Liu, M., & Sui, J. (2016). The interaction between social saliency and perceptual saliency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(12), 2419-2430.
[23]	Liu, M., Zhang, M., & Sui, J. (2014). Self-related information modulates global advantage effect in visual selection. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(3), 312-320. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00312
[24]	Liu, R., Wang, L., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Recent progress in the study of consciousness and multisensory integration. Chinese Science Bulletin, 61(1), 2-11.
[25]	Macrae, C. N., Visokomogilski, A., Golubickis, M., Cunningham, W. A., & Sahraie, A. (2017). Self-relevance prioritizes access to visual awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 438-443. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000361 pmid: 28240929
[26]	Mashour, G. A., Roelfsema, P., Changeux, J.-P., & Dehaene, S. (2020). Conscious processing and the global neuronal workspace hypothesis. Neuron, 105(5), 776-798. doi: S0896-6273(20)30052-0 pmid: 32135090
[27]	Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(1), 56-60.
[28]	Mudrik, L., Breska, A., Lamy, D., & Deouell, L. Y. (2011). Integration without awareness: Expanding the limits of unconscious processing. Psychological Science, 22(6), 764-770. doi: 10.1177/0956797611408736 pmid: 21555524
[29]	Mudrik, L., Faivre, N., & Koch, C. (2014). Information integration without awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(9), 488-496. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.009 pmid: 24933626
[30]	Mudrik, L., & Koch, C. (2013). Differential processing of invisible congruent and incongruent scenes: A case for unconscious integration. Journal of Vision, 13(13), 24-24. doi: 10.1167/13.13.24 pmid: 24273226
[31]	Payne, B., Lavan, N., Knight, S., & McGettigan, C. (2021). Perceptual prioritization of self‐associated voices. British Journal of Psychology, 112(3), 585-610.
[32]	Pfister, R., Pohl, C., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2012). Your unconscious knows your name. PloS One, 7(3), e32402.
[33]	Qin, P., Lai, Q., & Meng, M. (2024). The Self-prioritization Effect in Conscious Access. Journal of South China normal University (Social Science Edition), (1), 56-74.
[34]	Rubianes, M., Drijvers, L., Muñoz, F., Jiménez-Ortega, L., Almeida-Rivera, T., Sánchez-García, J., … Martín -Loeches, M. (2024). The self-reference effect can modulate language syntactic processing even without explicit awareness: An electroencephalography study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 36(3), 460-474. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_02104 pmid: 38165746
[35]	Silverstein, B. H., Snodgrass, M., Shevrin, H., & Kushwaha, R. (2015). P3b, consciousness, and complex unconscious processing. Cortex, 73, 216-227. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.09.004 pmid: 26474391
[36]	Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1105-1117. pmid: 22963229
[37]	Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2013). The boundaries of self face perception: Response time distributions, perceptual categories, and decision weighting. Visual Cognition, 21(4), 415-445.
[38]	Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). More of me! Distinguishing self and reward bias using redundancy gains. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(8), 2549-2561.
[39]	Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2017). The ubiquitous self:What the properties of self-bias tell us about the self. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1396(1), 222-235.
[40]	Sui, J., & Rotshtein, P. (2019). Self-prioritization and the attentional systems. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 148-152. doi: S2352-250X(18)30198-2 pmid: 30913475
[41]	Tu, S., Martens, U., Zhao, G., Pan, W., Wang, T., Qiu, J., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Subliminal faces with different valence: Unconscious mismatch detection indicates interactions between unconscious processing. World Journal of Neuroscience, 3(4), 298-306.
[42]	Tu, S., Wan, S., Jou, J., Ma, Y., Zhao, G., & Pan, W. (2020). Can unconscious sequential integration of semantic information occur when the prime Chinese characters are displayed from left to right? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 1221-1229.
[43]	Tu, S., Zhu, S., Liang, Q., Jou, J., Wan, S., Zhao, G., … Qiu, J. (2020). Unconscious integration of sequentially presented subliminal arrow pointing directions. Australian Journal of Psychology, 72(1), 82-92.
[44]	Van den Bussche, E., Notebaert, K., & Reynvoet, B. (2009). Masked primes can be genuinely semantically processed: A picture prime study. Experimental Psychology, 56(5), 295-300. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.56.5.295 pmid: 19447745
[45]	Van Opstal, F. (2021). The same-different task as a tool to study unconscious processing. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 37, 35-40.
[46]	Van Opstal, F., & Rooyakkers, M. (2022). Unconscious information integration: A replication and the role of spatial window in masking experiments. Cognition, 225, 105113.
[47]	Wang, D., Tang, L., Liang, Q., Jou, J., Ma, Y., Pan, W., & Tu, S. (2017). Unconscious integration of pointing relation between two masked arrows. Visual Cognition, 25(9-10), 928-939.
[48]	Wang, L., Wang, A., Qi, Y., Fan, Y., & Zhang, M. (2019). The mental representation of the self in the implicit association test: The role of the other. Journal of Psychological Science, 42(3), 633-638.
[49]	Wen, Z., & Yu, R. (2023a). Perceptual and semantic same-different processing under subliminal conditions. Consciousness and Cognition, 111, 103523.
[50]	Wen, Z., & Yu, R. (2023b). Unconscious integration: Current evidence for integrative processing under subliminal conditions. British Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 430-456.
[51]	Woźniak, M., & Knoblich, G. (2022). Self-prioritization depends on assumed task-relevance of self-association. Psychological Research, 86(5), 1599-1614.