ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2026
Increasing power for detecting awareness: a new approach to test group level objective performance.
Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Demonstrating reliable unconscious effects is notoriously challenging, and the scope of unconscious processing remains debated. Establishing unconscious effects requires two critical pieces of evidence: first, that the stimulus of interest was processed, and second, that participants were not consciously aware of that stimulus. Here, we focus on the second requirement which has faced criticism due to the low statistical power of awareness tests, undermining the reliability of evidence for unawareness. Consequently, reported unconscious effects might in fact stem from conscious processing. To better detect awareness, we suggest using two tests: the frequentist Group Binomial or Chi test and the Bayesian Group Binomial Bayesian test. Both tests were tailored for maximizing power in detecting consciousness, when using objective measures of awareness. We used simulations to compare the sensitivity and specificity of these tests with other commonly used ones (
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.