Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40434818›Full record

ArticleeLife2025

Criterion placement threatens the construct validity of neural measures of consciousness.

Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort, Philippa A Johnson, Niels A Kloosterman, Timo Stein, Simon van Gaal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Did you see it?eLife · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Nonconscious processing of fearful and neutral faces modulates the N170.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

5 authors.

Johannes Jacobus FahrenfortDepartment of Applied and Experimental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9025-3436
Philippa A JohnsonCognitive Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6125-3138
Niels A KloostermanDepartment of Psychology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-7996
Timo SteinDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8484-0933
Simon van GaalDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6628-4534

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council 10.3030/715605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How consciousness arises from brain activity has been a topic of intense scientific research for decades. But how does one identify the neural basis of something that is intrinsically personal and subjective? A hallmark approach has been to ask human observers to judge stimuli as 'seen' (conscious) and 'unseen' (unconscious) and use post hoc sorting of neural measurements based these judgments. Unfortunately, cognitive and response biases are known to strongly affect how observers place their criterion for judging stimuli as 'seen' versus 'unseen', thereby confounding neural measures of consciousness. Surprisingly however, the effect of conservative and liberal criterion placement on neural measures of unconscious and conscious processing has never been explicitly investigated. Here, we use simulations and electrophysiological brain measurements to show that conservative criterion placement has an unintuitive consequence: rather than selectively providing a cautious estimate of conscious processing, it inflates effect sizes in neural measures of both conscious and unconscious processing, while liberal criterion placement does the reverse. After showing this in simulation, we performed decoding analyses on two electroencephalography studies that employ common subjective indicators of conscious awareness, in which we experimentally manipulated the response criterion. The results confirm that the predicted confounding effects of criterion placement on neural measures of unconscious and conscious processing occur in empirical data, while further showing that the most widely used subjective scale, the Perceptual Awareness Scale (PAS), does not guard against criterion confounds. Follow-up simulations explicate how the experimental context determines whether the relative confounding effect of criterion placement is larger in neural measures of either conscious or unconscious processing. We conclude that criterion placement threatens the construct validity of neural measures of conscious and unconscious processing.

Indexed as

BrainConsciousnessAdultElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultbiasconsciousnesscriterionhumanneural measures of consciousnessneurosciencesignal detection theorysubjective measures

Identifiers

PMID40434818
PMCPMC12119085

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.