Abstract
Research on unconscious processing has been a valuable source of evidence in psycholinguistics for shedding light on the cognitive architecture of language. The automaticity of syntactic processing, in particular, has long been debated. One strategy to establish this automaticity involves detecting significant syntactic priming effects in tasks that limit conscious awareness of the stimuli. Criteria for assessing unconscious priming include the visibility (d') of masked words not differing significantly from zero and no positive correlation between visibility and priming. However, such outcomes could also arise for strictly methodological reasons, such as low statistical power in visibility tests or low reliability of dependent measures. In this study, we aimed to address these potential limitations. Through meta-analysis and Bayesian re-analysis, we find evidence of low statistical power and of participants having above-chance awareness of 'subliminal' words. Moreover, we conducted reliability analyses on a dataset from Berkovitch and Dehaene (2019), finding that low reliability in both syntactic priming and visibility tasks may better explain the absence of a significant correlation. Overall, these findings cast doubt on the validity of previous conclusions regarding the automaticity of syntactic processing based on masked priming effects. The results underscore the importance of revisiting the methods employed when exploring unconscious processing in future psycholinguistic research.