↓ Skip to main content

Is Conscious Stimulus Identification Dependent on Knowledge of the Perceptual Modality? Testing the “Source Misidentification Hypothesis”

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is Conscious Stimulus Identification Dependent on Knowledge of the Perceptual Modality? Testing the “Source Misidentification Hypothesis”
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten Overgaard, Jonas Lindeløv, Stinna Svejstrup, Marianne Døssing, Tanja Hvid, Oliver Kauffmann, Kim Mouridsen

Abstract

This paper reports an experiment intended to test a particular hypothesis derived from blindsight research, which we name the "source misidentification hypothesis." According to this hypothesis, a subject may be correct about a stimulus without being correct about how she had access to this knowledge (whether the stimulus was visual, auditory, or something else). We test this hypothesis in healthy subjects, asking them to report whether a masked stimulus was presented auditorily or visually, what the stimulus was, and how clearly they experienced the stimulus using the Perceptual Awareness Scale (PAS). We suggest that knowledge about perceptual modality may be a necessary precondition in order to issue correct reports of which stimulus was presented. Furthermore, we find that PAS ratings correlate with correctness, and that subjects are at chance level when reporting no conscious experience of the stimulus. To demonstrate that particular levels of reporting accuracy are obtained, we employ a statistical strategy, which operationally tests the hypothesis of non-equality, such that the usual rejection of the null-hypothesis admits the conclusion of equivalence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 5%
Chile 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 38 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Master 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,909,862
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,156
of 32,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,799
of 288,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#582
of 968 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 968 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.