ArticleeLife2025
Response to comment on 'Criterion placement threatens the construct validity of neural measures of consciousness'.
Article in eLife, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In Fahrenfort et al., 2025 we show the influence of non-perceptual criterion shifts on neural measures of consciousness. We fully agree (and point out in our article) that it was already known that subjective measures are sensitive to criterion confounds, and we are happy to read that this is acknowledged by Sandberg and Overgaard in their comment (Sandberg and Overgaard, 2025). However, we contest that the main findings of our simulations and empirical studies had already been demonstrated. Several findings from our studies are novel, such as the fact that criterion effects reveal themselves as over- (or under-) estimations of both conscious and unconscious processing in tandem, and that this has tangible implications when analyzing real neural data. We also challenge the suggestion that our experimental manipulations are (too) radical compared to signal-to-noise variations that occur naturally between experiments.
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.