↓ Skip to main content

Evidence of weak conscious experiences in the exclusion task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

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
Evidence of weak conscious experiences in the exclusion task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristian Sandberg, Simon H. Del Pin, Bo M. Bibby, Morten Overgaard

Abstract

Exclusion tasks have been proposed as objective measures of unconscious perception as they do not depend upon subjective ratings. In exclusion tasks, participants have to complete a task without using a previously presented prime. Use of the prime is taken as evidence for unconscious processing in the absence of awareness, yet it may also simply indicate that participants have weak experiences but fail to realize that these affect the response or fail to counter the effect on the response. Here, we tested this claim by allowing participants to rate their experience of a masked prime on the perceptual awareness scale (PAS) after the exclusion task. Results showed that the prime was used almost as often when participants reported having seen a "weak glimpse" of the prime as when they claimed to have "no experience" of the prime, thus suggesting participants frequently have weak (possibly contentless) experiences of the stimulus when failing to exclude. This indicates that the criteria for report of awareness is lower (i.e., more liberal) than that for exclusion and that failure to exclude should not be taken as evidence of complete absence of awareness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 %
Sweden 2 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 37 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 52%
Philosophy 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 April 2022.
All research outputs
#5,985,939
of 24,571,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,511
of 33,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,672
of 257,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#123
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,571,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 257,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.