Subjective and Objective Measures of Visual Awareness Converge

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2023 Oct 3

PMID 37788260

Authors

Markus Kiefer

Verena Fruhauf

Thomas Kammer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Within consciousness research, the most appropriate assessment of visual awareness is matter of a controversial debate: Subjective measures rely on introspections of the observer related to perceptual experiences, whereas objective measures are based on performance of the observer to accurately detect or discriminate the stimulus in question across a series of trials. In the present study, we compared subjective and objective awareness measurements across different stimulus feature and contrast levels using a temporal two-alternative forced choice task. This task has the advantage to provide an objective psychophysical performance measurement, while minimizing biases from unconscious processing. Thresholds based on subjective ratings with the Perceptual Awareness Scale (PAS) and on performance accuracy were determined for detection (stimulus presence) and discrimination (letter case) tasks at high and low stimulus contrast. We found a comparable pattern of thresholds across tasks and contrasts for objective and subjective measurements of awareness. These findings suggest that objective performance measures based on accuracy and subjective ratings of the visual experience can provide similar information on the feature-content of a percept. The observed similarity of thresholds validates psychophysical and subjective approaches to awareness as providing converging and thus most likely veridical measures of awareness.

Citing Articles

In Search of an Integrative Method to Study Unconscious Processing: An Application of Bayesian and General Recognition Theory Models to the Processing of Hierarchical Patterns in the Absence of Awareness.

Prieto A, Montoro P, Jimenez M, Hinojosa J J Cogn. 2025; 8(1):6.

PMID: 39803183 PMC: 11720486. DOI: 10.5334/joc.411.

Consciousness Under the Spotlight: The Problem of Measuring Subjective Experience.

Jimenez M, Prieto A, Hinojosa J, Montoro P Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2024; 16(1):e1697.

PMID: 39449331 PMC: 11652689. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1697.

Unconscious Processing Contaminates Objective Measures of Conscious Perception: Evidence From the Liminal Prime Paradigm.

Micher N, Mazenko D, Lamy D J Cogn. 2024; 7(1):71.

PMID: 39372100 PMC: 11451544. DOI: 10.5334/joc.402.

The Relation Between Subjective and Objective Measures of Visual Awareness: Current Evidence, Attempt of a Synthesis and Future Research Directions.

Kiefer M, Kammer T J Cogn. 2024; 7(1):59.

PMID: 39035071 PMC: 11259121. DOI: 10.5334/joc.381.

References

Lahteenmaki M, Hyona J, Koivisto M, Nummenmaa L . Affective processing requires awareness. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015; 144(2):339-65. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000040. View

Rausch M, Zehetleitner M . Visibility Is Not Equivalent to Confidence in a Low Contrast Orientation Discrimination Task. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:591. PMC: 4874366. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00591. View

Kammer T, Lehr L, Kirschfeld K . Cortical visual processing is temporally dispersed by luminance in human subjects. Neurosci Lett. 1999; 263(2-3):133-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3940(99)00137-8. View

Wallis S, Baker D, Meese T, Georgeson M . The slope of the psychometric function and non-stationarity of thresholds in spatiotemporal contrast vision. Vision Res. 2012; 76:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.09.019. View

Jimenez M, Hinojosa J, Montoro P . Visual awareness and the levels of processing hypothesis: A critical review. Conscious Cogn. 2020; 85:103022. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2020.103022. View

Albrecht T, Mattler U . Individual differences in subjective experience and objective performance in metacontrast masking. J Vis. 2012; 12(5):5. DOI: 10.1167/12.5.5. View

Peirce J . PsychoPy--Psychophysics software in Python. J Neurosci Methods. 2007; 162(1-2):8-13. PMC: 2018741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017. View

Seth A . Post-decision wagering measures metacognitive content, not sensory consciousness. Conscious Cogn. 2007; 17(3):981-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.008. View

Koch C, Preuschoff K . Betting the house on consciousness. Nat Neurosci. 2007; 10(2):140-1. DOI: 10.1038/nn0207-140. View

10.

Vorberg D, Mattler U, Heinecke A, Schmidt T, Schwarzbach J . Different time courses for visual perception and action priming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003; 100(10):6275-80. PMC: 156362. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0931489100. View

11.

Kruschke J . Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012; 142(2):573-603. DOI: 10.1037/a0029146. View

12.

Langenberg B, Janczyk M, Koob V, Kliegl R, Mayer A . A tutorial on using the paired t test for power calculations in repeated measures ANOVA with interactions. Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(5):2467-2484. PMC: 10439102. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01902-8. View

13.

Ansorge U, Kunde W, Kiefer M . Unconscious vision and executive control: how unconscious processing and conscious action control interact. Conscious Cogn. 2014; 27:268-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.05.009. View

14.

Ulrich R, Vorberg D . Estimating the difference limen in 2AFC tasks: pitfalls and improved estimators. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009; 71(6):1219-27. DOI: 10.3758/APP.71.6.1219. View

15.

Overgaard M, Rote J, Mouridsen K, Ramsoy T . Is conscious perception gradual or dichotomous? A comparison of report methodologies during a visual task. Conscious Cogn. 2006; 15(4):700-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.04.002. View

16.

Ulrich R . DLs in reminder and 2AFC tasks: data and models. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010; 72(4):1179-98. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.4.1179. View

17.

Del Cul A, Dehaene S, Reyes P, Bravo E, Slachevsky A . Causal role of prefrontal cortex in the threshold for access to consciousness. Brain. 2009; 132(Pt 9):2531-40. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awp111. View

18.

Sandberg K, Bibby B, Timmermans B, Cleeremans A, Overgaard M . Measuring consciousness: task accuracy and awareness as sigmoid functions of stimulus duration. Conscious Cogn. 2011; 20(4):1659-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.002. View

19.

Maloney L . The slope of the psychometric function at different wavelengths. Vision Res. 1990; 30(1):129-36. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(90)90132-5. View

20.

Windey B, Cleeremans A . Consciousness as a graded and an all-or-none phenomenon: A conceptual analysis. Conscious Cogn. 2015; 35:185-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.03.002. View