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
Cited by 117
- Neural correlates of consciousness: progress and problems Nature Reviews Neuroscience April 20, 2016
- How rich is consciousness? The partial awareness hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences July 1, 2010
- The relationship between attention and consciousness: an expanded taxonomy and implications for 'no-report' paradigms. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences September 19, 2018
- Consciousness matters: phenomenal experience has functional value. Neuroscience of Consciousness 2022
- Early Local Activity in Temporal Areas Reflects Graded Content of Visual Perception. Frontiers in Psychology 2016
and 112 more in the library
Cites 6
- Measuring consciousness: relating behavioural and neurophysiological approaches. Trends in Cognitive Sciences July 5, 2008
- Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: a critical review of visual masking. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences May 29, 2007
- Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness. Nature Neuroscience February 2007
- Is conscious perception gradual or dichotomous? A comparison of report methodologies during a visual task. Consciousness and Cognition December 2006
- Relative blindsight in normal observers and the neural correlate of visual consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences November 21, 2006
and 1 more in the library