ArticleeLife2025
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent article Fahrenfort and colleagues demonstrate that auditory and monetary punishment change the criteria that participants use to rate the clarity of perception (Fahrenfort et al., 2025). This leads them to conclude that "subjective measures do not reliably measure the construct they intend to measure" and that their construct validity is threatened. Here, we argue that the main findings had already been demonstrated in other experiments, and the general limitations of subjective measures has been known for decades without the field dismissing their usefulness. We further argue that the experimental manipulations of Fahrenfort and colleagues are so radical that they could be used to invalidate essentially any psychological/cognitive test. In our view, both of the above-mentioned conclusions are thus inappropriate considering the evidence presented, and we believe that the take-home message both before and after the study of Fahrenfort and colleagues is to acknowledge the limitations of subjective reports when they are used.
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.