Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
