Journal
CONSCIOUSNESS AND COGNITION
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 1081-1083Publisher
ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.05.006
Keywords
Consciousness; Methodology; Perceptual Awareness Scale; Confidence ratings; Post-decision wagering; Subliminal perception; Partial awareness
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In their comment on Sandberg, Timmermans, Overgaard, and Cleeremans (2010), Dienes and Seth argue that increased sensitivity of the Perceptual Awareness Scale (PAS) is a consequence of the scale being less exclusive rather than more exhaustive. According to Dienes and Seth, this is because PAS may measure some conscious content, though not necessarily relevant conscious content, If one saw a square but was only aware of seeing a flash of something, then one has not consciously seen a square. In this reply, we claim that there is a difference between conscious visual experience, which may be partial, and the resulting conscious content, which is conceptual. Whereas PAS measures the first, confidence judgments and post-decision wagering measure the second. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available