Did you see it?

When researchers are overly cautious in how they report their analyses of brain activity, it can artificially inflate the apparent relationship between neural measures and conscious or unconscious experiences. This makes it harder to tell the difference between conscious and unconscious processing. The finding suggests that reporting practices can introduce bias that obscures the true distinctions between these two types of experiences.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Cautious reporting choices can artificially enhance how well analyses of brain activity reflect conscious and unconscious experiences, making distinguishing between the two more challenging.