Cited by 197Visual perception and processing mechanismsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceMemory Processes and Influences

Human observers have optimal introspective access to perceptual processes even for visually masked stimuli

Open access
Peters, Megan A K, Lau, Hakwan·2015·eLife

Abstract

Many believe that humans can ‘perceive unconsciously’ – that for weak stimuli, briefly presented and masked, above-chance discrimination is possible without awareness. Interestingly, an online survey reveals that most experts in the field recognize the lack of convincing evidence for this phenomenon, and yet they persist in this belief. Using a recently developed bias-free experimental procedure for measuring subjective introspection (confidence), we found no evidence for unconscious perception; participants’ behavior matched that of a Bayesian ideal observer, even though the stimuli were visually masked. This surprising finding suggests that the thresholds for subjective awareness and objective discrimination are effectively the same: if objective task performance is above chance, there is likely conscious experience. These findings shed new light on decades-old methodological issues regarding what it takes to consider a neurobiological or behavioral effect to be 'unconscious,' and provide a platform for rigorously investigating unconscious perception in future studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.09651

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Barthelmé S Mamassian P 2010 Flexible mechanisms underlie the evaluation of visual confidence Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 20834 20839 10.1073/pnas.1007704107 21076036 PMC2996459 · DOI
  2. Barthelmé S Mamassian P Kording K 2009 Evaluation of objective uncertainty in the visual system PLoS Computational Biology 5 e09651 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000504.s001 PMC2730538 19750003 · DOI
  3. Barthelmé S Mamassian P 2009 Evaluation of objective uncertainty in the visual system PLoS Computational Biology 5 e09651 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000504 PMC2730538 19750003 · DOI
  4. Boyer JL Harrison S Ro T 2005 Unconscious processing of orientation and color without primary visual cortex Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 16875 16879 10.1073/pnas.0505332102 16263934 PMC1283801 · DOI
  5. de Gardelle V Mamassian P 2014 Does confidence use a common currency across two visual tasks? Psychological Science 25 1286 1288 10.1177/0956797614528956 24699845 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Dorfman DD Alf E 1969 Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of signal-detection theory and determination of confidence intervals—rating-method data Journal of Mathematical Psychology 6 487 496 10.1016/0022-2496(69)90019-4 · DOI
  7. Dosher BA Lu Z-L 1998 Perceptual learning reflects external noise filtering and internal noise reduction through channel reweighting Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95 13988 13993 10.1073/pnas.95.23.13988 9811913 PMC25004 · DOI
  8. Eriksen CW 1960 Discrimination and learning without awareness: a methodological survey and evaluation Psychological Review 67 279 300 10.1037/h0041622 13697142 · DOI
  9. Evans S Azzopardi P 2007 Evaluation of a 'bias-free' measure of awareness Spatial Vision 20 61 77 10.1163/156856807779369742 17357716 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Galvin SJ Podd JV Drga V Whitmore J 2003 Type 2 tasks in the theory of signal detectability: discrimination between correct and incorrect decisions Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10 843 876 10.3758/BF03196546 15000533 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Green DM Swets JA 1966 Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc
  12. Hannula DE Simons DJ Cohen NJ 2005 Imaging implicit perception: promise and pitfalls Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 6 247 255 10.1038/nrn1630 15738960 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Heeks F Azzopardi P 2015 Thresholds for detection and awareness of masked facial stimuli Consciousness and Cognition 32 68 78 10.1016/j.concog.2014.09.009 25307748 · DOI
  14. Jachs B Blanco MJ Grantham-Hill S Soto D 2015 On the independence of visual awareness and metacognition: a signal detection theoretic analysis Journal of Experimental Psychology 41 269 276 10.1037/xhp0000026 25665083 · DOI
  15. Lagarias JC Reeds JA Wright MH Wright PE 1998 Convergence properties of the nelder--mead simplex method in low dimensions SIAM Journal on Optimization 9 112 147 10.1137/S1052623496303470 · DOI
  16. Lloyd DA Abrahamyan A Harris JA Antal A 2013 Brain-stimulation induced blindsight: unconscious vision or response bias? PLoS One 8 e09651 16 10.1371/journal.pone.0082828.g006 PMC3855787 24324837 · DOI
  17. Macmillan NA Creelman CD 2004 Detection Theory: A User’s Guide New York Taylor & Francis
  18. Maniscalco B Lau H 2012 A signal detection theoretic approach for estimating metacognitive sensitivity from confidence ratings Consciousness and Cognition 21 422 430 10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.021 22071269 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Merikle P Smilek D Eastwood JD 2001 Perception without awareness: perspectives from cognitive psychology Cognition 79 115 134 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00126-8 11164025 · DOI
  20. Nachmias J Weber A 1975 Discrimination of simple and complex gratings Vision Research 15 217 223 10.1016/0042-6989(75)90210-2 1129978 · DOI
  21. Nadaraya EA 1964 On estimating regression Theory of Probability & Its Applications 9 141 142 10.1137/1109020 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Nagelkerke NJD 1991 A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination Biometrika 78 691 692 10.1093/biomet/78.3.691 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Pessiglione M Schmidt L Draganski B Kalisch R Lau H Dolan RJ Frith CD 2007 How the brain translates money into force: a neuroimaging study of subliminal motivation Science 316 904 906 10.1126/science.1140459 17431137 PMC2631941 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Ramsøy Thomas Zoëga Overgaard M 2004 Introspection and subliminal perception Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3 1 23 10.1023/B:PHEN.0000041900.30172.e8 · DOI
  25. Robichaud L Stelmach LB 2003 Inducing blindsight in normal observers Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10 206 209 10.3758/BF03196486 12747509 · DOI
  26. Scott RB Dienes Z Barrett AB Bor D Seth AK A. K 2014 Blind insight: metacognitive discrimination despite chance task performance Psychological Science 25 2199 2208 10.1177/0956797614553944 25384551 PMC4263819 · DOI
  27. Shabel SJ Murphy RT Malinow R 2014 Negative learning bias is associated with risk aversion in a genetic animal model of depression Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 1 9 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00001 24474914 PMC3893716 · DOI
  28. Snodgrass M Bernat E Shevrin H 2004 Unconscious perception: a model-based approach to method and evidence Perception & Psychophysics 66 846 867 10.3758/BF03194978 15495909 · DOI
  29. Soto D Mäntylä T Silvanto J 2011 Working memory without consciousness Current Biology 21 R912 R913 10.1016/j.cub.2011.09.049 22115455 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Sridharan D Steinmetz NA Moore T Knudsen EI 2014 Distinguishing bias from sensitivity effects in multialternative detection tasks Journal of Vision 14 16 10.1167/14.9.16 25146574 PMC4141865 · DOI
  31. Thomas JP Gille J Barker RA 1982 Simultaneous visual detection and identification: theory and data Journal of the Optical Society of America 72 1642 1651 10.1364/JOSA.72.001642 7153805 · DOI
  32. Thomas JP 1987 Effect of eccentricity on the relationship between detection and identification Journal of the Optical Society of America A 4 1599 1605 10.1364/JOSAA.4.001599 3625342 · DOI
  33. Watson AB Robson JG 1981 Discrimination at threshold: labelled detectors in human vision Vision Research 21 1115 1122 10.1016/0042-6989(81)90014-6 7314490 · DOI
  34. Watson GS 1964 Smooth regression analysis Sankya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A 26 359 372
  35. Weiskrantz L 1986 Blindsight: A Case Study and Implications Oxford Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peters, M. A. K., & Lau, H.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Peters, Megan A K
Venue
eLife
Published
2015-10-03
Volume
4
Pages
e09651-e09651
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2192933481
Cited by
197
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 10
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01NS088628)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
unconscious perception, visual masking, introspective access, subjective confidence, Bayesian ideal observer, subjective experience, discrimination thresholds, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Neurobiology, Perception, Young Adult

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