IAT and Priming Tests: Advances in Neuroscience and EEG Technology

Implicit bias tests, particularly the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and priming-based paradigms, have long been used to investigate automatic associations that influence human judgment and behavior (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 1998). In recent years, advances in neuroscience and brain-monitoring technologies have expanded the methodological toolkit available to researchers studying implicit cognition (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016; Yatsenko et al., 2025). 
 
This post examines how modern neurophysiological methods, including electroencephalography (EEG), combined with artificial intelligence-driven data analysis, are helping researchers explore the neural processes underlying implicit attitudes and automatic associations (Cai & Wu, 2021; Calà et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025). Emerging studies suggest that integrating behavioral measures with brain-sensing technologies can provide deeper insight into the temporal dynamics of implicit processing (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016; Veliks et al., 2024). 
 
These developments are especially relevant for healthcare, clinical psychology, consumer neuroscience, and human-computer interaction (Cunningham, 2024; Tipura et al., 2024; Kalaganis et al., 2025). As neurotechnology platforms continue to evolve, multimodal approaches that combine behavioral testing with neural data may offer new ways to understand implicit cognitive processes and their role in real-world decision-making (Ghosh et al., 2024; Xue et al., 2024). 

The following video serves as an introduction to Implicit Bias Tests.

Introduction to Implicit Bias Tests 

Implicit measures became widely used in academic research several decades ago. Researchers applied them to study biases related to race, gender, sexuality, age, and religion, as well as constructs such as self-esteem in clinical psychology (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 1998; Cai & Wu., 2021). Today, implicit methods are also used in market research and consumer neuroscience, where they help reveal automatic preferences toward products, brands, political candidates, or health-related behaviors (Morehouse & Banaji, 2024; Kalaganis et al., 2025). 
 
Explicit techniques ask individuals directly about their opinions, beliefs, or attitudes through self-report methods such as questionnaires or interviews. Implicit techniques, by contrast, aim to capture information without directly asking participants. Instead, they rely on behavioral responses, most often reaction times, to infer automatic associations that may operate outside conscious awareness (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). 
 
Interest in implicit methods has grown in part because research in social cognition has identified key limitations of explicit procedures:

• Limitation 1: Explicit responses can be influenced by self-presentation strategies, meaning that participants may consciously or unconsciously modify their answers to align with social expectations.
• Limitation 2: Explicit measures are constrained by the limits of introspection: individuals are not always able to accurately report the cognitive processes underlying their attitudes and judgments (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). 

These limitations are often interpreted within dual-process models of cognition. From this perspective, human information processing involves two interacting systems. The propositional system, often referred to as System 2, supports deliberate reasoning and conscious evaluation but operates relatively slowly, whereas the associative system, or System 1, relies on automatic activation of learned associations and operates rapidly, often with limited introspective accessibility (Strack & Deutsch, 2004; Schnabel et al., 2008). 
 
Implicit response tests aim to capture these rapid associative processes. They do so by measuring how quickly individuals categorize or associate different concepts during computerized tasks. Reaction time serves as an indirect indicator of associative strength: faster responses typically reflect stronger cognitive associations between the paired concepts (Greenwald et al., 1998; Schnabel et al., 2008). 

Timing in Implicit Measures 

A key methodological question in implicit response paradigms concerns the timing of behavioral responses. Reaction time plays a central role in these tasks because it provides an indirect measure of the strength of cognitive associations (Greenwald et al., 1998; Ratliff & Smith, 2024). 
 
When a stimulus is presented, the brain begins processing the information and preparing a motor response. In computerized implicit tasks, participants typically respond by pressing a key to categorize stimuli as quickly and accurately as possible. Reaction times, therefore, reflect the combined duration of perceptual processing, cognitive evaluation, and motor execution (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016). 
 
To improve data quality, extremely fast or extremely slow responses are usually excluded from analysis. Responses faster than approximately 200–300 ms are often considered anticipatory and unlikely to reflect genuine stimulus processing. At the other extreme, responses exceeding roughly 650–900 ms may reflect hesitation, distraction, or greater task difficulty and are therefore commonly treated as outliers (Greenwald et al., 1998; Ratliff & Smith, 2024). 
 
Importantly, these time thresholds do not map directly onto System 1 or System 2 processing. Cognitive processing speed varies across individuals, tasks, and stimulus types, and automatic and deliberative processes may overlap in time. For this reason, implicit research typically relies on standardized scoring procedures and statistical filtering methods to analyze reaction-time data while accounting for individual variability (Strack & Deutsch, 2004; Elder et al., 2023). 
 
Several implicit paradigms are used in both academic and applied settings, including the IAT, the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST), the Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT), the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), and semantic or visual priming tests (Ratliff & Smith, 2024). Among them, the IAT and priming-based paradigms remain the most widely used and extensively studied (Greenwald et al., 1998; Ratliff & Smith, 2024). 

Figure 1. Conceptual representation of timing in implicit measures. Reaction times reflect the combined duration of perceptual processing, cognitive evaluation, and motor execution. Extremely fast and unusually slow responses are typically excluded using standardized filtering procedures, as no fixed temporal boundary can be assigned exclusively to automatic or deliberative processing (Strack & Deutsch, 2004; Elder et al., 2023). 

There is no exact window of time during which System 1 operates because some people react faster than others, and some stimuli are more difficult to process than others. Various algorithms are employed to filter the data.  

The Implicit Association Test  

The Implicit Association Test is one of the most widely used tools for assessing implicit attitudes and automatic associations. It was introduced in 1998 by Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGhee, and Jordan Schwartz as a reaction-time-based method for measuring the relative strength of associations between mental concepts (Greenwald et al., 1998).

Its theoretical roots lie in earlier work on implicit social cognition, particularly the proposal that attitudes, stereotypes, and self-related associations can shape perception and behavior even when they are not fully accessible to conscious introspection (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).

Unlike explicit questionnaires or interviews, the IAT does not ask participants to directly report what they think or feel. Instead, it captures behavioral evidence of automatic associations by measuring how quickly individuals categorize stimuli under different pairing conditions. This makes the IAT particularly valuable in contexts where self-report may be influenced by social desirability or limited introspective access (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 1998). 

Procedure 

In a typical IAT, participants are asked to classify a series of stimuli, usually words or images, as quickly and accurately as possible using two response keys. These stimuli belong to two main types of categories: 

• Target categories, which represent the concepts being compared 
• Attribute categories, which represent evaluative or semantic dimensions such as good/bad, healthy/unhealthy, or safe/risky

The task is organized into blocks in which category labels are paired in different ways. When two concepts that are more strongly associated in memory share the same response key, responses tend to be faster and more accurate. When less strongly associated concepts are paired together, responses typically become slower and more effortful (Greenwald et al., 1998; Schiller et al., 2016). 

For example, if a participant responds faster when Category 1 + Good share a key than when Category 2 + Good share the same key, this pattern suggests a stronger automatic association between Category 1 and the attribute Good (Greenwald et al., 1998). 

The critical outcome of the IAT is therefore not a single reaction time, but the difference in performance across pairing conditions. In general, faster performance indicates a stronger underlying association between the paired concepts. A standard IAT can usually be completed in 5 to 10 minutes, making it a practical and scalable tool for both research and applied settings (Greenwald et al., 1998; Ratliff & Smith, 2024). 

When instructions oblige highly associated category and attribute (e.g., Category 1 + Good) to share a response key, performance is faster than when less associated category and attribute (e.g., Category 2 + Good) share a key. This performance difference implicitly measures differential association of the 2 categories with the attribute.

The quicker the performance the stronger the association. The test should not take more than 10 minutes to be completed. 

TAKE A TEST!
You can try an IAT by clicking in the popup on the bottom (bottom-right if you are using a desktop device) of this page.  If it doesn’t appear, please refresh your browser.
Make sure you select your native language. At the end of the test, you will see your personal IAT scores along with the scores of other participants whohave already taken the test.

What the IAT Measures 

The IAT is best understood as a measure of relative associative strength. It does not reveal whether a participant consciously endorses a belief, nor does it provide a direct explanation for why an association exists. Instead, it estimates the strength of the link between two concepts in memory based on the speed and pattern of categorization responses (Greenwald et al., 1998; Ratliff & Smith, 2024). 

This distinction is especially important in scientific and applied contexts. In healthcare, psychology, consumer research, and human behavior analysis, the IAT can help identify patterns of implicit cognition that may not be fully captured through explicit questioning alone (Cunningham, 2024; Tipura et al., 2024). 

IAT and EEG: Expanding Beyond Behavior 

While the traditional IAT is a behavioral paradigm, recent advances in neuroscience have significantly expanded its value. By combining the IAT with EEG, researchers can move beyond reaction times and examine the neural dynamics underlying implicit processing (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016; Cai & Wu., 2021). 

This multimodal approach makes it possible to investigate: 

• when automatic associations emerge in the brain 
• how the brain responds to congruent versus incongruent pairings 
• which neural processes reflect semantic conflict, emotional salience, or cognitive control (Xiao et al., 2015) 

EEG studies suggest that incongruent IAT conditions are often associated with greater recruitment of neural systems involved in conflict monitoring and controlled processing, whereas congruent conditions may reflect more fluent associative processing. Event-related potentials such as the N400 and the Late Positive Potential (LPP) have been especially informative, offering millisecond-level insight into how implicit associations unfold over time (Williams & Themanson, 2011; Xiao et al., 2015; Tipura et al., 2024). 

The combination of behavioral paradigms such as the IAT with advanced EEG technology and AI-driven signal analysis creates new opportunities to study implicit cognition in a more objective, fine-grained, and ecologically meaningful way (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016; Cai & Wu., 2021). 

Priming Tests: Mechanisms and Neural Correlates 

The priming effect occurs when exposure to one stimulus influences the processing of a subsequent stimulus, either with or without conscious intention. Early work by Storms and Cofer showed that presenting related material before an association task could temporarily increase associative strength (Storms, 1958; Cofer, 1960; Cramer, 1966). 

Priming tests are a family of implicit measures designed to examine how exposure to one stimulus influences the processing of a subsequent stimulus. In this context, the prime activates related associations in memory, which can facilitate or interfere with the response to the target (Matsumoto & Kakigi, 2014; Wilson et al., 2024). 

In many applied paradigms, the targets represent the concepts or categories under comparison, for example, two brands, two social groups, or two product designs, whereas the primes provide the evaluative, semantic, or visual cues used to activate associated mental representations. Depending on the type of prime used, these paradigms may take the form of semantic priming (word-based) or visual priming (image-based) tasks. 

Procedure 

In a typical priming task, participants are asked to respond to the target as quickly and accurately as possible by classifying it into the appropriate category. Immediately before the target appears, a prime, either a word or an image, is briefly presented on the screen, often for approximately 200–300 ms. Participants are usually instructed to ignore the prime and focus only on the target classification task (Matsumoto & Kakigi, 2014; Veliks et al., 2024). 

When the prime and target are more strongly associated, responses tend to be faster and more accurate. Differences in performance across congruent and incongruent pairings are interpreted as evidence of implicit associative strength (Wilson et al., 2024; Veliks et al., 2024). 

As in other implicit paradigms, implausibly fast or unusually slow responses are typically excluded from analysis in order to improve data quality and reduce the influence of anticipatory or overly deliberative responding (Elder et al., 2023). 

Unlike the IAT, which is fundamentally based on relative categorization across paired blocks, priming paradigms are especially useful for examining rapid associative activation and early-stage processing effects. This makes them particularly well suited for combination with EEG, where millisecond-level temporal resolution can help identify the neural stages at which priming effects emerge (Matsumoto & Kakigi, 2014; Wilson et al., 2024). 

Neural Mechanisms of Priming 

Recent neuroscience research has helped clarify the neural substrates of priming effects. Studies of subliminal semantic priming suggest that unconscious processing can modulate connectivity between frontal and temporal brain regions. Other work using masked social hierarchies during categorization tasks has identified ERP patterns consistent with the processing of socially relevant information outside conscious awareness (Matsumoto & Kakigi, 2014; Fondevila et al., 2022). 

Recent EEG research has examined forward and backward priming, revealing distinct behavioral and neural correlates. In addition, methodological work on latency variability has shown that timing jitter can affect EEG classifier performance, highlighting the importance of careful analysis when interpreting time-varying neural signals (Li et al., 2024; Wilson et al., 2024). 

A particularly useful variant is subliminal evaluative priming, in which primes are presented below the threshold of conscious awareness. Time-frequency EEG studies suggest that this approach can reveal neural markers of implicit ethnic attitudes and other socially relevant associations, supporting the integration of priming paradigms with neurophysiological methods (Veliks et al., 2024). 

Comparing IAT and Priming Paradigms 

Although both paradigms are designed to assess implicit associations, they differ in task structure, interpretability, temporal profile, and suitability for specific research questions (Greenwald et al., 1998; Ratliff & Smith, 2024). 

The IAT is most useful when the goal is to compare two concepts or categories and estimate a relative preference or bias. Its block structure, extensive validation history, and compatibility with conflict-monitoring research make it particularly attractive for studies of cognitive control and congruency effects (Greenwald et al., 1998; Forbes et al., 2012; Xiao et al., 2015). 

Priming paradigms, by contrast, are especially useful for examining rapid associative activation, single-concept processing, or subliminal influences. They can be more flexible than the IAT and are often better suited to capturing early sensory and semantic effects (Matsumoto & Kakigi, 2014; Veliks et al., 2024; Wilson et al., 2024). 

From an EEG perspective, the two methods also show different neural emphases. IAT tasks often engage control-related processing more strongly, particularly in incongruent conditions, whereas priming tasks are especially informative for examining early sensory and semantic dynamics. For researchers seeking a broad and mechanistically rich picture of implicit cognition, the two approaches can be complementary rather than competing (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016; Li et al., 2024). 

The Neural Foundations of Implicit Cognition 

Recent neuroscience research has substantially expanded our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying implicit bias tests. By combining behavioral measures with EEG, researchers can now observe the brain’s real-time processing during implicit tasks and characterize the temporal dynamics of automatic associations (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016; Yatsenko et al., 2025). 

Among the ERP components most relevant to this literature are: 

• N400, which is sensitive to semantic incongruity and expectancy violation 
• LPP, which is often linked to emotional and motivational significance 
• P1/N1, which can reflect early sensory and attentional processing (Williams & Themanson, 2011; Calà et al., 2024; Tipura et al., 2024) 

Together, these signals help researchers distinguish early perceptual effects from later semantic, affective, and control-related processes. Electrical neuroimaging studies of the IAT further suggest that incongruent conditions may extend the duration of specific processes, especially perceptual and control-related operations, rather than simply adding new ones (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016). 

Time-frequency analyses add another layer of information by identifying oscillatory patterns associated with implicit attitudes. This is particularly valuable in paradigms such as subliminal evaluative priming, where conventional reaction-time measures may not fully capture the richness of the underlying neural response (Veliks et al., 2024). 

Validation, Reliability, and Methodological Considerations

The validity and reliability of implicit bias tests have been debated for many years, and recent methodological work has refined the discussion rather than closed it (Elder et al., 2023; Morehouse & Banaji, 2024; Ratliff & Smith, 2024). 

On the positive side, newer studies have moved beyond simple test-retest questions and started to examine the reliability of the cognitive processes contributing to IAT responses. Diffusion-model approaches also suggest that behavioral scores may reflect a mixture of mechanisms, including response caution and non-decision processes, not just association strength. This is an important reminder that interpretation requires nuance (Elder et al., 2023; Morehouse & Banaji, 2024). 

Neural data provide convergent evidence, not definitive proof, for the plausibility of the constructs measured by these tasks. EEG studies have shown separable neural contributions to congruent and incongruent conditions, along with patterns consistent with semantic processing, emotional evaluation, and control-related conflict monitoring (Forbes et al., 2012; Williams & Themanson, 2011; Xiao et al., 2015). 

At the same time, several limitations remain important: 

• ERP signals can have a relatively low signal-to-noise ratio 
• Implicit associations can be context-sensitive 
• Individuals show substantial variability in neural responses 
• The relationship between neural markers, behavioral scores, and real-world behavior remains complex (Dijkstra et al., 2020; Lahtinen et al., 2019; Yatsenko et al., 2025) 

For that reason, implicit tests are best interpreted as part of a broader multimodal framework rather than as standalone readouts of hidden beliefs. 

Real-World Applications 

The integration of implicit tests with EEG has opened useful possibilities across several applied domains. 

Healthcare and Clinical Psychology 

Implicit paradigms have been used to investigate bias in healthcare professionals, including how stereotype-related processing may influence clinical judgment. In clinical psychology, modified IAT paradigms have been used to study self-health associations, depressive traits, stress-related aggression, and treatment-related change (Cunningham, 2024; Tipura et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025). 

Consumer Neuroscience and Neuromarketing

Implicit tests remain valuable for understanding consumer preferences without relying entirely on self-report. When combined with EEG, they can offer more detailed information about the temporal dynamics of brand evaluation, product perception, and advertising response. Multimodal approaches that integrate EEG with eye tracking appear particularly promising for real-world consumer research (Kalaganis et al., 2025). 

Political and Social Cognition

Research has also applied implicit measures and EEG to political attitudes, voting behavior, intergroup bias, and social reconciliation. These applications are especially relevant when explicit self-report may be influenced by social norms, strategic responding, or low introspective accessibility (Galli et al., 2021; Morehouse & Banaji, 2024; Ugarriza et al., 2025). 

What These Trends Mean 

The relevance of this field lies in the convergence of three strengths: EEG technology, AI-driven signal analysis, and human behavior research. 
First, implicit paradigms such as the IAT and priming tasks provide structured behavioral frameworks that can be integrated with EEG to generate richer multimodal datasets. Second, advances in wearable EEG, signal processing, and machine learning are making it increasingly feasible to study implicit cognition outside highly constrained laboratory settings. Third, the growing demand for ecologically valid, interpretable, and scalable neurotechnology creates opportunities in healthcare, consumer research, and human-computer interaction (Ghosh et al., 2024; Kalaganis et al., 2025; Xue et al., 2024).

This does not mean that implicit bias testing has become a solved problem. It means that companies working at the intersection of neuroscience, engineering, and applied human research are now better positioned to build tools that make these paradigms more informative, usable, and clinically or commercially relevant.

Conclusion 

Implicit bias tests, particularly the IAT and priming paradigms, remain important tools for studying automatic associations that shape judgment and behavior (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 1998). Their original value came from providing indirect access to processes that are not always well captured by explicit self-report.

Today, their relevance is broader. When combined with EEG and modern signal analysis, these behavioral paradigms can support a more detailed understanding of when implicit effects emerge, which cognitive operations they engage, and how those processes vary across individuals and contexts (Forbes et al., 2012; Schiller et al., 2016; Yatsenko et al., 2025).

The key opportunity lies not simply in using EEG as an add-on, but in advancing a more integrated science of implicit cognition in which behavioral measures, neural data, and applied decision-making can be studied together. That combination has the potential to improve research quality, strengthen interpretation, and expand the real-world utility of implicit testing across healthcare, psychology, consumer neuroscience, and beyond (Ghosh et al., 2024; Kalaganis et al., 2025; Xue et al., 2024). 

References

Cai, H., & Wu, L. (2021). The self-esteem implicit association test is valid: Evidence from brain activity. Psych Journal, 10(4), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.422 

Calà, A., Zangrilli, M. A., Mancini, M., Petti, M., Cincotti, F., & Mattia, D. (2024). Expectancy violation: Climate change associations may reveal underlying brain-evoked responses of implicit attitudes. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. https://www.proceedings.com/content/077/077737webtoc.pdf 

Cofer, C. N. (1960). Experimental studies on the role of verbal processes in concept formation and problem-solving. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 91, 94–107. 

Cramer, P. (1966). Mediated priming of associative responses: The effect of time-lapse and interpolated activity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(2), 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80010-5 

Cunningham, W. A. (2024). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals beyond implicit association tests: A neuroscientific understanding. In Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology (pp. 23–38). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76204-8_3 

Dijkstra, K. V., Farquhar, J. D. R., & Desain, P. W. M. (2020). The N400 for brain–computer interfacing: Complexities and opportunities. Journal of Neural Engineering, 17(2), 022001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab702e 

Elder, J., Wilson, L., & Calanchini, J. (2023). Estimating the reliability and stability of cognitive processes contributing to responses on the Implicit Association Test. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(10), 1451–1470. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231171256 

Fondevila, S., Hernández-Gutiérrez, D., Espuny, J., Jiménez-Ortega, L., Casado, P., Muñoz, F. M., Sánchez-García, J., & Martín-Loeches, M. (2022). Subliminal priming effects of masked social hierarchies during a categorization task: An event-related brain potentials study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, 862359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.862359 

Forbes, C. E., Cameron, K. A., Grafman, J., Barbey, A. K., Solomon, J., Ritter, W., & Ruchkin, D. (2012). Identifying temporal and causal contributions of neural processes underlying the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00320 

Galli, G., Angelucci, D., Bode, S., et al. (2021). Early EEG responses to pre-electoral survey items reflect political attitudes and predict voting behavior. Scientific Reports, 11, 18692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96193-y 

Ghosh, S., Máthé, D., Harishita, P. B., Sankarapillai, P., Mohan, A., Bhuvanakantham, R., Gulyás, B., & Padmanabhan, P. (2024). Review of multimodal data acquisition approaches for brain–computer interfaces. BioMed, 4(4), 548–587. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomed4040041 

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4 

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 

Kalaganis, F., Chatzilari, E., Nikolopoulos, S., & Kompatsiaris, I. (2025). A hybrid neuromarketing approach exploiting EEG graph signal processing and gaze dynamic patterning. Brain Informatics, 12(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40708-025-00272-z 

Lahtinen, A., Juvonen, K., Lapveteläinen, A., Kolehmainen, M., Lindholm, M., Tanila, H., Kantanen, T., Sinikallio, S., Karhunen, L., & Närväinen, J. (2019). Metabolic state as a modulator of neural event-related potentials for food stimuli in an implicit association test. Physiology & Behavior, 207, 112589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112589 

Li, Y., Sommer, W., Tian, L., & Zhou, C. (2024). Assessing the influence of latency variability on EEG classifiers: A case study of face repetition priming. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 18(6), 3527–3548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-024-10181-2 

Matsumoto, A., & Kakigi, R. (2014). Subliminal semantic priming changes the dynamic causal influence between the left frontal and temporal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(2), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00472 

Morehouse, K. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2024). The science of implicit race bias: Evidence from the Implicit Association Test. Dædalus, 153(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02047 

Ratliff, K. A., & Smith, C. T. (2024). The Implicit Association Test. Dædalus, 153(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02048 

Schiller, B., Gianotti, L. R. R., Baumgartner, T., Nash, K., Koenig, T., & Knoch, D. (2016). Clocking the social mind by identifying mental processes in the IAT with electrical neuroimaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(10), 2786–2791. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515828113 

Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., & Greenwald, A. G. (2008). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: V. Measuring semantic aspects of trait self-concepts. European Journal of Personality, 22(8), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.697 

Storms, L. H. (1958). Apparent backward association: A situational effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044258 

Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1 

Tipura, E., Rennung, M., & Göritz, A. S. (2024). I don’t feel sick: Cognitive and affective processing of self-health associations using the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Health Psychology, 29(6), 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053241233509 

Ugarriza, J. E., Lopez, J. D., Quiza, J., Vergara, N., & Trujillo, N. (2025). Event-related potential responses of ex-combatants and war victims differ for bias stimuli. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 43958. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27449-0 

Veliks, V., Porozovs, J., Plotka, I., Blumenau, N., & Igonins, D. (2024). Neural markers of ethnic implicit attitudes obtained by time-frequency analysis of data of the subliminal evaluative priming procedure: Pilot study. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, 2(2), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.30525/2592-8813-2024-2-2-15 

Williams, L. E., & Themanson, J. R. (2011). Neural correlates of the implicit association test: Evidence for semantic and emotional processing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq065 

Wilson, M., Wittmann, M., & Kornmeier, J. (2024). Behavioural and EEG correlates of forward and backward priming. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/43zae 

Xiao, F., Zheng, Z., Wang, Y., Cui, J., & Chen, Y. (2015). Conflict monitoring and stimulus categorization processes involved in the prosocial attitude implicit association test: Evidence from event-related potentials. Social Neuroscience, 10(4), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2014.1003598 

Xue, T., Fan, W., Liu, Z., Xu, M., Xu, C., Chen, C., & Ming, D. (2024). Instrumentation, measurement, and signal processing in electroencephalography-based brain–computer interfaces: Situations and prospects. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 73, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2024.3417598 

Yatsenko, M. V., Brak, I. V., & Artemenko, E. D. (2025). Review of experience in the use of event-related potentials in studies of the implicit component of cognitive biases. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology, 55(1), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-025-01765-4 

Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Duan, Y., Liu, M., Xu, Q., & Wu, L. (2025). Acute psychological stress promotes implicit aggression: Evidence from behavior and ERPs. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 25, 1083–1098. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-025-01276-2 

You might be interested in:

• All you need to know about neuromarketing 
• What is neuromarketing? Understanding how people make decisions
• Are we influenced by product placement while playing video games?
• This Is How Eye Tracking Technology Works
• EEG and Virtual Reality: The Neuroadaptive Future of Neurotechnology
• Steps to design a neuromarketing project following scientific methodology
• Ethics and neuromarketing implications for market research and business practice
• What is EEG and what is it used for?