ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2025
Confidence in auditory perceptual completion.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Filling-in of the foveal rod scotoma and confidence preference for central vision under mesopic viewing conditions.Vision research · 2026Article
- Low confidence for perceptual completion of partially occluded objects.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Confidence in incomplete visual search.Visual cognition · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Previous studies examining confidence in perceptual completion in vision showed that observers can be unaware of missing sensory information and be even more confident in perceptually completed stimuli than veridical stimuli. In the current study, we aimed to investigate if auditory filling-in mechanisms would result in similar confidence biases. In two separate experiments, participants listened to continuous (uninterrupted) or discontinuous (interrupted) tones that were accompanied by noise. We examined confidence for continuity-discontinuity decisions by collecting confidence ratings (Experiment 1) and forced-choice confidence judgments (Experiment 2). Participants reported the interrupted sounds with masking noise more as uninterrupted, showing auditory filling-in. Confidence ratings in the first experiment followed response consistency. Forced-choice confidence judgments in the second experiment showed that participants were not able to distinguish the filled-in stimulus from a continuous stimulus with similar masking noise. Most importantly, there was no clear preference for a veridical compared to a perceptually completed stimulus. These results, extending findings from the visual modality, are the first to demonstrate that listeners are unaware of auditory filling-in and trust filled-in information almost as much as veridical information in the auditory sense.
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.