ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2019
Deflating inflation: the connection (or lack thereof) between decisional and metacognitive processes and visual phenomenology.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Signatures proposed to index perceptual effects emerge in a purely cognitive task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Reappraising intuitions about consciousness.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A novel behavioral paradigm reveals the nature of confidence computation in multi-alternative perceptual decision making.Research square · 2024Article
- Metacognitive awareness in the sound-induced flash illusion.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Challenging the fixed-criterion model of perceptual decision-making.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2023Article
- The Radically Embodied Conscious Cybernetic Bayesian Brain: From Free Energy to Free Will and Back Again.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- V1 as an egocentric cognitive map.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2021Article
- A review of interactions between peripheral and foveal vision.Journal of vision · 2020Review
- Defending subjective inflation: an inference to the best explanation.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2020Article
- Consciousness Under the Spotlight: The Problem of Measuring Subjective Experience.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vision presents us with a richly detailed world. Yet, there is a range of limitations in the processing of visual information, such as poor peripheral resolution and failures to notice things we do not attend. This raises a natural question: How do we seem to see so much when there is considerable evidence indicating otherwise? In an elegant series of studies, Lau and colleagues have offered a novel answer to this long-standing question, proposing that our sense of visual richness is an artifact of decisional and metacognitive deficits. I critically evaluate this proposal and conclude that it rests on questionable presuppositions concerning the relationship between decisional and metacognitive processes, on one hand, and visual phenomenology, on the other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.