Abstract
In his analysis of subliminal perception research,
Erdelyi (2004) documented two important (but neglected) phenomena: subchance perception and temporal variability in stimulus availability and accessibility. This Commentary addresses three issues raised by Erdelyi's review: (1) the importance of distinguishing “micro” from “macro” temporal shifts; (2) the need to analyze perception without awareness data at the level of the individual as well as the group; and (3) parallels between the dissociations associated with neuroclinical phenomena (e.g., hemispheric isolation) and those observed in patients with certain forms of personality pathology. Continued integration of laboratory findings with in vivo observations of clinical syndromes will yield a more cohesive and heuristic approach to the study of implicit mental states.