IMPLICIT SYNTHESIS

In this reply to Neal and Hesketh and to the commentators, we argue th at implicit knowledge is partly abstract and can be usefully defined b y the criteria of both metaknowledge and intentional control. We sugge st that the pattern of dissociations supports a claim of separate impl icit and explicit learning modes. According to our characterization, i mplicit learning leads to knowledge that is not automatically represen ted as knowledge by the learning process; instead, the presence of kno wledge has to be inferred by the subject (partial explicitation) if me taknowledge is gained at all. During explicit learning, knowledge is a utomatically labeled as knowledge by the learning process, so that met aknowledge comes immediately and to the fullest extent. Finally, we su ggest that implicit knowledge may to some degree apply regardless of i ntention.