Abstract

Van Selst and Merikle argued that the critical Preference × Strategy interaction findings could be alternatively explained by positing individual differences as a function of preference and strategy. They further argued that ruling out conscious perception depends on making the exhaustiveness assumption. We argue that the inhibitory effects satisfy objective threshold criteria regardless of possible individual differences in thresholds. We further suggest that the inhibitory findings are inherently incompatible with the conscious perception explanation and that therefore we do not need to make the exhaustiveness assumption. We thus stand by our original conclusion that subliminal perception at the objective threshold has been demonstrated