↓ Skip to main content

Visibility Is Not Equivalent to Confidence in a Low Contrast Orientation Discrimination Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Visibility Is Not Equivalent to Confidence in a Low Contrast Orientation Discrimination Task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00591
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Rausch, Michael Zehetleitner

Abstract

In several visual tasks, participants report that they feel confident about discrimination responses at a level of stimulation at which they would report not seeing the stimulus. How general and reliable is this effect? We compared subjective reports of discrimination confidence and subjective reports of visibility in an orientation discrimination task with varying stimulus contrast. Participants applied more liberal criteria for subjective reports of discrimination confidence than for visibility. While reports of discrimination confidence were more efficient in predicting trial accuracy than reports of visibility, only reports of visibility but not confidence were associated with stimulus contrast in incorrect trials. It is argued that the distinction between discrimination confidence and visibility can be reconciled with both the partial awareness hypothesis and higher order thought theory. We suggest that consciousness research would benefit from differentiating between subjective reports of visibility and confidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 62 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Student > Master 16 24%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 45%
Neuroscience 11 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Philosophy 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 12 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,371,100
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,745
of 29,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,385
of 298,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#289
of 418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 298,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.