語言學上定義詞彙的相關性可以分為兩種：語意關連詞彙以及聯想關聯詞彙。已知具有關聯性的詞彙可以加速無意識狀態下的反應，但是至今仍然沒有明確的結論可以指出到底是哪一種關聯詞彙所導致。綜合過去的相關研究，不一致的結果似乎可以歸因為對語意關連詞彙鬆散而且不盡相同的定義。本研究旨在觀察給予語意關連詞彙嚴格定義之後，過往被報告因語意關連詞彙所導致的助益是否消失。利用連續閃動抑制模型，而非過往所使用的經典促發模型，受試者花費最短時間偵測無關聯性詞彙，最長時間處理聯想關聯詞彙。這可能 是因為在無意識狀態下，人會最快察覺有衝突性的資訊。考量受試者在偵測語意關連詞彙的反應時減去偵測無關聯性詞彙時會短於聯想關聯詞彙減去偵測無關聯性詞彙所花費時間，我們總結為因為語意關連詞彙是一種人工定義的產物，所以當在給予嚴格限制之後，語意關連詞可能會變成具有衝突性的資訊，而過往所稱的語意關聯助益也因此消失。

There are two main aspects of word relatedness in literature: semantic relatedness and associative relatedness. So far, no any conclusive evidence to indicate which word relationship would speed up word perception under unconsciousness. We criticized that the inconsistent results might due to the loose and diverted criterions. In this study, we aim to answer whether the benefit of semantic relatedness mentioned in previous researches would disappear with a more stringent definition. Three word-pair conditions were then created: associated relatedness condition (AR), associative relatedness and semantic relatedness condition (ARSR) as well as no relatedness condition (NR). A sandwich masking paradigm was first utilized. However, the result was then be explained as conscious effect. A better suppression psychophysical method, breaking continuous flash suppression paradigm, was then introduced to the following two experiments. Surprisingly, participants showed the longest reaction time detecting the AR condition, followed by ARSR, and the NR condition. In addition, the reaction time of AR condition minus NR is significant longer than the reaction time of ARSR condition minus NR. The violation information was explained to induce one to react faster under unconsciousness. Following the logic, the semantic relatedness was then interpreted as an obstacle for word integration. It’s might because that semantic relatedness is an artificial definition and cannot be connected as easily as associated relatedness. We conclude that the benefit of semantic relatedness is disappear with a more stringent definition.

1. Abad, M. J., Noguera, C., & Ortells, J. J. (2003). Influence of prime–target relationship on semantic priming effects from words in a lexical-decision task. Acta Psychologica, 113(3), 283-295. 2. Bodner, G. E., & Masson, M. E. (2003). Beyond spreading activation: An influence of relatedness proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 645-652.
3. Brainard, D. H. (1997) The Psychophysics Toolbox, Spatial Vision 10:433-436. 4. Costello, P., Jiang, Y., Baartman, B., McGlennen, K., & He, S. (2009). Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression. Consciousness and cognition, 18(2), 375-382. 5. Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec'H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., ... & Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395(6702), 597. 6. Eastwood, J. D., & Smilek, D. (2005). Functional consequences of perceiving facial expressions of emotion without awareness. Consciousness and cognition, 14(3), 565-584 7. Forster, K. I., & Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 680.
8. Gobbini, I., Gors, J. D., Halchenko, Y. O., Hughes, H. C., and Cipolli, C. (2013a). Processing of invisiblesocialcues. Conscious. Cogn. 22, 765–770. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.05.002
9. Gobbini, I., Gors, J. D., Halchenko, Y. O., Rogers, C., Guntupalli, S., Hughes, H., et al. (2013b). Prioritized detection of personally familiar faces. PLoS ONE 8:e66620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0066620 10. Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. European journal of epidemiology, 31(4), 337-350. 11. Ho, J., Tumkaya, T., Aryal, S., Choi, H., & Claridge-Chang, A. (2018). Moving beyond P values: Everyday data analysis with estimation plots. BioRxiv, 377978. 12. Hung, S. M., Nieh, C. H., & Hsieh, P. J. (2016). Unconscious processing of facial attractiveness: Invisible attractive faces orient visual attention. Scientific Reports, 6, 37117. 13. Hung, S. M., & Hsieh, P. J. (2015). Syntactic processing in the absence of
33
awareness and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1376. 14. Jiang, Y., Costello, P., & He, S. (2007). Processing of invisible stimuli: Advantage of upright faces and recognizable words in overcoming interocular suppression. Psychological science, 18(4), 349-355. 15. Kerr, J. A., Hesselmann, G., Räling, R., Wartenburger, I., & Sterzer, P. (2017). Choice of analysis pathway dramatically affects statistical outcomes in breaking continuous flash suppression. Scientific reports, 7(1), 3002 16. Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior research methods, 42(3), 627-633. 17. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., Pelli, D., Ingling, A., Murray, R., & Broussard, C. (2007). What's new in psychtoolbox-3. Perception, 36(14), 1-16.
18. Lin, Y., Michel, J. B., Aiden, E. L., Orwant, J., Brockman, W., & Petrov, S. (2012). Syntactic annotations for the google books ngram corpus. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations (pp. 169-174). Association for Computational Linguistics. 19. Lundqvist, D., Flykt, A., & Öhman, A. (1998). The Karolinska directed emotional faces (KDEF).
20. Mudrik, L., Breska, A., Lamy, D., and Deouell, L. Y. (2011). Integration without awareness: expanding the limits of unconscious processing. Psychol. Sci. 22, 764–770. doi: 10.1177/09567976114 08736 21. Moors, P., & Hesselmann, G. (2018). A critical reexamination of doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(1), 472-481. 22. Ortells, J. J., Vellido, C., Daza, M. T., & Noguera, C. (2006). Semantic Priming Effects with and without Perceptual Awareness. Psicológica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 27(2), 225-242. 23. Ortells, J. J., Marí-Beffa, P., & Plaza-Ayllón, V. (2013). Unconscious congruency priming from unpracticed words is modulated by prime–target semantic relatedness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(2), 394. 24. Ortells, J. J., Kiefer, M., Castillo, A., Megías, M., & Morillas, A. (2016). The semantic origin of unconscious priming: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence during category congruency priming from strongly and weakly related masked words. Cognition, 146, 143-157. 25. Ortells, J. J., Daza, M. T., & Fox, E. (2003). Semantic activation in the absence of perceptual awareness. Perception & psychophysics, 65(8), 1307-1317. 26. Pelli, D. G. (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies, Spatial Vision 10:437-442.
34
27. Postman, L., & Keppel, G. (Eds.).Norms of word association. New York: Academic Press, 1970. 28. Plaut, D. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. In Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the cognitive science society (Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 37-4 29. Rohaut, B., Alario, F., Meadow, J., Cohen, L., & Naccache, L. (2016). Unconscious semantic processing of polysemous words is not automatic. Neuroscience of consciousness, 2016(1). 30. Rose, M., Haider, H., & Büchel, C. (2005). Unconscious detection of implicit expectancies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 918-927. 31. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 16(2), 225-237. 32. Sánchez-Casas, R., Ferré, P., Demestre, J., García-Chico, T., & García-Albea, J. E. (2012). Masked and unmasked priming effects as a function of semantic relatedness and associative strength. The Spanish journal of psychology, 15(3), 891-900. 33. Sánchez-Casas, R., Ferré, P., García-Albea, J., & Guasch, M. (2006). The nature of semantic priming: Effects of the degree of semantic similarity between primes and targets in Spanish. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(2), 161-184. 34. Sklar, A. Y., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2012). Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(48), 19614-19619.
35. Stein, T., Senju, A., Peelen, M. V., and Sterzer, P. (2011c). Eye contact facilitates awareness of faces during interocular suppression. Cognition 119, 307–311. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011. 01.008 36. Stein, T., & Sterzer, P. (2014). Unconscious processing under interocular suppression: getting the right measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 387. 37. Tsuchiya, N., & Koch, C. (2005). Continuous flash suppression reduces negative afterimages. Nature neuroscience, 8(8), 1096. 38. Thompson-Schill, S. L., Kurtz, K. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). Effects of semantic and associative relatedness on automatic priming. Journal of memory and language, 38(4), 440-458 39. Van den Bussche, E., & Reynvoet, B. (2007). Masked priming effects in semantic categorization are independent of category size. Experimental psychology, 54(3), 225-235. 40. Van den Bussche, E., Smets, K., Sasanguie, D., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). The
35
power of unconscious semantic prcessing: The effect of semantic relatedness between prime and target on subliminal priming. Psychologica Belgica, 52(1), 59-70. 41. Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176-1190. 42. Willenbockel, V., Sadr, J., Fiset, D., Horne, G. O., Gosselin, F., & Tanaka, J. W. (2010). Controlling low-level image properties: the SHINE toolbox. Behavior research methods, 42(3), 671-684. 43. Yang, Y. H., & Yeh, S. L. (2011). Accessing the meaning of invisible words. Consciousness and cognition, 20(2), 223-233.
44. Yang, E., Zald, D. H., and Blake, R. (2007). Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression. Emotion 7, 882–886. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542. 7.4.882