There is so much that bothers about this I don't know where to begin. WTF does "process the meaning of" even mean semantically? This is a great example of an interesting study that is completely hack jobbed by shoddy interpretation.
I've written a bit on this subject in the past. This is a clear example of what I was getting at by calling neuroscience the modern day dualism. Your brain sees nothing, as it is an organ, not a person. The link I've provided is a very long answer to your question, but I don't know how to answer it any more concisely. If I were writing the story about this finding, I would have framed it as "certain neural correlates that are known to be involved in recognition are activated even in the case when conscious recognition doesn't take place, which signifies that there are multiple brain systems that must be activated in order for one to notice and recognize and object", or something like that. Saying that the brain sees or "processes the meaning" of an object is literally nonsense.
I'm not sure, based on the fact that many of the things that I have a problem with are direct quotes from the researchers themselves. If it was just the journalist I wouldn't be so riled up by it, as journalists can't be expected to be perfect. The fact is, this kind of language is really common in the scientific community. I am in the minority on this, unfortunately.