Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37928594›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Does report modality modulate psychophysical sensitivity? The jury remains out.

Oliver J Hulme, Barrie Roulston, Morten Overgaard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Oliver J HulmeDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital Amager and Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Barrie RoulstonIndependent Researcher, London, United Kingdom.
Morten OvergaardCNRU, Center for Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific studies of perception use motoric reports as the principal means of communicating subjective experience. In such experiments, a widely held and implicit assumption is that the motor action conveys but does not tamper with perceptual experience. We tested nine observers on a luminance detection task in a cross-over repeated measures design. In separate conditions, observers reported their detection via movements of either their hands or eyes. We found only anecdotal evidence for any modality-dependent effect on psychophysical sensitivity. We also reanalyzed an existing dataset from which deployed a similar detection paradigm involving hand and eye reports. In the four paradigm variants tested, we again only found anecdotal evidence for the effect of report modality on psychophysical sensitivity. Both studies reported here provide only anecdotal evidence; thus, whether we can replicate report-dependent perceptual effects still needs to be resolved. We argue why this remains an important question for consciousness research and why it deserves more rigorous and high-powered replication attempts.

Indexed as

actionconsciousmethodologymodalityreport

Identifiers

PMID37928594
PMCPMC10621792
OpenAlexW4387779828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.