Bachmann Talis, Aru Jaan
Faculty of Law, Institute of Penal Law, University of Tartu (Tallinn Branch), Estonia.
Faculty of Law, Institute of Penal Law, University of Tartu (Tallinn Branch), Estonia; Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Tartu (Tallinn Branch), Estonia.
Conscious Cogn. 2016 Oct;45:198-199. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.020. Epub 2016 Sep 15.
In response to the methodological criticism (Bachmann & Aru, 2015) of the interpretation of their earlier experimental results (Mack, Erol, & Clarke, 2015) Mack, Erol, Clarke, and Bert (2016) presented new results that they interpret again in favor of the stance that an attention-free phenomenal iconic store does not exist. Here we once more question their conclusions. When their subjects were unexpectedly asked to report the letters instead of the post-cued circles in the 101th trial where letters were actually absent, they likely failed to see the empty display area because prior experience with letters in the preceding trials produced expectancy based illusory experience of letter-like objects.
针对对其早期实验结果（Mack、Erol和Clarke，2015）解释的方法论批评（Bachmann和Aru，2015），Mack、Erol、Clarke和Bert（2016）呈现了新的结果，他们再次解释这些结果以支持不存在无注意力现象性图像存储这一立场。在此，我们再次质疑他们的结论。当在第101次试验中实际没有字母时意外要求他们的受试者报告字母而非提示后的圆圈，他们可能没有看到空白显示区域，因为先前试验中对字母的经验在前一次试验中产生了基于预期的类似字母物体的错觉体验。
