Skip to content

Measuring consciousness: is one measure better than the other?

Kristian Sandberg, Bert Timmermans, Morten Overgaard, Axel Cleeremans

Consciousness and Cognition December 2010 DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.013 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Experimental study Peer reviewed
Measures Perceptual Awareness Scale (PAS), confidence ratings (CR), post-decision wagering (PDW)
Key findings PAS correlated more strongly with identification performance than confidence ratings or post-decision wagering, particularly at low stimulus intensities. All scales showed above-chance performance when participants reported no awareness, but this occurred only when awareness and performance were also correlated, which the authors argue supports above-chance performance without subjective awareness while indicating unconscious knowledge contributes only alongside conscious knowledge.

Abstract

What is the best way of assessing the extent to which people are aware of a stimulus? Here, using a masked visual identification task, we compared three measures of subjective awareness: The Perceptual Awareness Scale (PAS), through which participants are asked to rate the clarity of their visual experience; confidence ratings (CR), through which participants express their confidence in their identification decisions, and Post-decision wagering (PDW), in which participants place a monetary wager on their decisions. We conducted detailed explorations of the relationships between awareness and identification performance, looking to determine (1) which scale best correlates with performance, and (2) whether we can detect performance in the absence of awareness and how the scales differ from each other in terms of revealing such unconscious processing. Based on these findings we discuss whether perceptual awareness should be considered graded or dichotomous. Results showed that PAS showed a much stronger performance-awareness correlation than either CR or PDW, particularly for low stimulus intensities. In general, all scales indicated above-chance performance when participants claimed not to have seen anything. However, such above-chance performance only showed when we also observed a correlation between awareness and performance. Thus (1) PAS seems to be the most exhaustive measure of awareness, and (2) we find support for above-chance performance in the absence of subjective awareness, but such unconscious knowledge only contributes to performance when we observe conscious knowledge as well. Similarities and differences between scales are discussed in the light of consciousness theories and response strategies.

Citations in the library