ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2020
Defending subjective inflation: an inference to the best explanation.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Signatures proposed to index perceptual effects emerge in a purely cognitive task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Iconic versus working memory metacognition to evaluate the richness of perception: a registered report.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Peripheral overconfidence in a scene categorization task.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Consistent metacognitive efficiency and variable response biases in peripheral vision.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Metacognitive awareness in the sound-induced flash illusion.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- V1 as an egocentric cognitive map.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent opinion piece, Abid (2019) criticizes the hypothesis that subjective inflation may partly account for apparent phenomenological richness across the visual field and outside the focus of attention. In response, we address three main issues. First, we maintain that inflation should be interpreted as an intraperceptual-and not post-perceptual-phenomenon. Second, we describe how inflation may differ from filling-in. Finally, we contend that, in general, there is sufficient evidence to tip the scales toward intraperceptual interpretations of visibility and confidence judgments.
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.