Object relations are processed with, but not without, awareness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scope of unconscious integration is widely debated. Here, we examined this question, focusing specifically on deciphering the relations between two associatively related objects, in a set of five behavioral and electrophysiological experiments. Participants were presented with masked pairs of related and unrelated objects and were asked to judge their relatedness. When the masked pairs were visible, we found both a behavioral priming effect and a difference in the magnitude of the electrophysiological N400 component for unrelated compared with related pairs. In sharp contrast, when the pairs were invisible (validated using both subjective and objective awareness measures), no convincing evidence was found for relatedness processing: with electroencephalography, no difference in N400 amplitude nor above-chance decoding of pair relations was found in two separate experiments. Based on these results, we conclude that the data do not support unconscious relatedness processing, suggesting that consciousness might have a prominent role in enabling relational integration beyond the single object level, which is in line with leading theories of consciousness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it