ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2025
Early ERPs dissociate subjectively nonconscious low- and high-level face processing.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an ongoing debate about the extent to which faces are processed if they are not consciously perceived. In the present study, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate neural responses to faces and two types of control stimuli (monochrome color-matched ovals and Fourier phase-scrambled faces), which allowed us to dissociate low-level and high-level face processing. Based on a pre-registered sequential Bayesian sampling protocol, we recorded the electroencephalogram (EEG) from 40 participants and compared the average amplitude of early components of the ERP (P1, N170) between faces, scrambles, and blanks presented for 17 ms, while the mask followed directly or 200 ms after the target stimulus. Participants were asked to rate their subjective perception after each trial on a perceptual awareness scale, and only trials with the lowest rating in the masked condition were considered as subjectively nonconscious. Matching the pre-registered hypotheses, P1 amplitudes were higher for faces and scrambles compared to blanks but did not differ between faces and scrambles. This pattern was found for conscious and nonconscious faces, however, with smaller yet reliable differences in the latter case. In contrast, the N170 reliably differentiated between faces and both types of control stimuli (scrambles and blanks), again for conscious and, with attenuated differences, also for nonconscious faces. Findings support the hypothesis of two early stages of face processing, which are at least partially independent of consciousness awareness of stimuli. The P1 stage is associated with low-level processing, while the N170 reflects processing of face-related configural information.
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.