Cited by 454Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness

Persaud, Navindra, McLeod, Peter, Cowey, Alan·2007·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

The lack of an accepted measure of awareness has made claims that accurate decisions can be made without awareness controversial. Here we introduce a new objective measure of awareness, post-decision wagering. We show that participants fail to maximize cash earnings by wagering high following correct decisions in blindsight, the Iowa gambling task and an artificial grammar task. This demonstrates, without the uncertainties associated with the conventional subjective measures of awareness (verbal reports and confidence ratings), that the participants were not aware that their decisions were correct. Post-decision wagering may be used to study the neural correlates of consciousness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn1840

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Persaud, N., McLeod, P., & Cowey, A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Persaud, Navindra
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2007-01-21
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
257-261
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W1969847029
Cited by
454
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 28
FWCI
35.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
awareness, blindsight, Iowa Gambling Task, neural correlates of consciousness, decision-making, verbal protocols, confidence ratings, unconscious decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Brain, Consciousness, Decision Making, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Gambling, Humans, Language Tests, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Sensory Thresholds, Unconscious, Psychology, Verbal Behavior, Blindness, Cortical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review