ArticleNature communications2026
The act of detecting a stimulus contaminates measures of conscious experience with decision biases.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. 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.
- The act of detecting a stimulus contaminates measures of conscious experience with decision biases.Nature communications · 2026Article
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
A central challenge in consciousness research is determining whether observers have a conscious experience of a stimulus. However, present/absent detection judgments are often biased by contextual factors, making it difficult to isolate conscious perception from non-perceptual influences. Traditional psychophysical methods struggle to disentangle these components. To address this, we conducted in-person experiments (N = 505) in which participants detected and reproduced dim and absent contrast-defined Gabor stimuli under three contextual manipulations: attentional cues, asymmetrical base rates, and payoff schemes. Using a reproduction task together with a Hurdle-Gaussian model, we quantitatively decomposed reproduction responses into a perceptual continuous contrast component and a non-perceptual "hurdle" component. We found that statistical priors (base rate) and reward structures (payoff) induced non-perceptual shifts in the reproduction hurdle, whereas attentional cues selectively shifted the continuous contrast component, consistent with changes in conscious experience. Critically, comparing conditions with and without intermixed detection trials revealed that the presence of a detection task contaminates reproduction reports with non-perceptual criterion effects. This highlights the need for caution in using and interpreting results that rely on detection judgments, even when combined with subjective measures like reproduction, especially given the central role that detection tasks play in consciousness research.
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.