scholarly journals A window of subliminal perception

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristian Sandberg ◽  
Simon Hviid Del Pin ◽  
Morten Overgaard ◽  
Bo Martin Bibby

Under labels such as unconscious processing and subliminal perception, identification of stimuli falling below the subjective threshold has been found remarkably accurate in some experiments while completely at chance in others. Here, we first demonstrate the existence of a window of subliminal perception in humans using different experimental paradigms and analysis methods. We then show that the standard signal detection theory (SDT) model is unable to accounts for this window and extend it until it is. We finally compare a range of models on empirical data. The models performing best are notable for their absence of hierarchical levels, indicating that the window could be a base property of any phenomenally conscious system. The models further explain previously incompatible findings in the literature, and they allow for estimations of peaks in subthreshold perception across the spectrum of stimulus saliency, which may be used in further studies of subliminal perception.

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (3) ◽  
pp. 904-921
Author(s):  
Yongwoo Yi ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Daniel M. Merfeld

Decision making is a fundamental subfield within neuroscience. While recent findings have yielded major advances in our understanding of decision making, confidence in such decisions remains poorly understood. In this paper, we present a confidence signal detection (CSD) model that combines a standard signal detection model yielding a noisy decision variable with a model of confidence. The CSD model requires quantitative measures of confidence obtained by recording confidence probability judgments. Specifically, we model confidence probability judgments for binary direction recognition (e.g., did I move left or right) decisions. We use our CSD model to study both confidence calibration (i.e., how does confidence compare with performance) and the distributions of confidence probability judgments. We evaluate two variants of our CSD model: a conventional model with two free parameters (CSD2) that assumes that confidence is well calibrated and our new model with three free parameters (CSD3) that includes an additional confidence scaling factor. On average, our CSD2 and CSD3 models explain 73 and 82%, respectively, of the variance found in our empirical data set. Furthermore, for our large data sets consisting of 3,600 trials per subject, correlation and residual analyses suggest that the CSD3 model better explains the predominant aspects of the empirical data than the CSD2 model, especially for subjects whose confidence is not well calibrated. Moreover, simulations show that asymmetric confidence distributions can lead traditional confidence calibration analyses to suggest “underconfidence” even when confidence is perfectly calibrated. These findings show that this CSD model can be used to help improve our understanding of confidence and decision making. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We make life-or-death decisions each day; our actions depend on our “confidence.” Though confidence, accuracy, and response time are the three pillars of decision making, we know little about confidence. In a previous paper, we presented a new model — dependent on a single scaling parameter — that transforms decision variables to confidence. Here we show that this model explains the empirical human confidence distributions obtained during a vestibular direction recognition task better than standard signal detection models.


1995 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 972-972
Author(s):  
Jerome R. Busemeyer

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn C. Stafford ◽  
James L. Szalma ◽  
Peter A. Hancock ◽  
Mustapha Mouloua

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document