However, many of these effects should be interpreted cautiously due to highly important methodological considerations specific to non-directional tests. Accordingly, we provide best practice recommendations for using non-directional tests. (12/14)

The results were highly consistent across tests and datasets: non-significant directional unconscious effects were _not_ masked by variability in effect signs, ruling out non-directional unconscious effects. (10/14)

We also implemented two non-parametric tests of our own: the sign-consistency test and the absolute effect size test. We show with simulations that these tests are more statistically sensitive than existing tests. (9/14)

We re-analysed 26 previously reported non-significant unconscious effects, using five non-directional tests that ask if effects are reliable within individuals rather than at the group level. (7/14)

We noted that the statistical tests employed in these studies may be too stringent. They require non-zero group-level effect, but it is equally interesting if group-level effects are zero because participants are reliably affected by the unconscious stimulus in opposite ways. (5/14)

Unconscious effects on behaviour are cases where participants report not seeing a stimulus, but their behaviour is affected nonetheless. For example, slowing down or speeding up in certain conditions. (2/14)

Do null group-level effects reflect the mixture of true subject-level effects at opposing directions? In a new paper, now accepted at Psychological Bulletin & Review (osf.io/preprints/ps...), we turn this question to the field of unconscious processing (1/14)