Abstract:How consciousness arises from brain activity has been a topic of intense scientific research for decades. But how does one identify the neural basis of something that is intrinsically personal and subjective? A hallmark approach has been to ask observers to judge stimuli as 'seen' (conscious) and 'unseen' (unconscious) and use post hoc sorting of neural measurements based these judgments. Unfortunately, cognitive and response biases are known to strongly affect how observers place their criterion for judging stimuli as 'seen' vs. 'unseen', thereby confounding neural measures of consciousness. Surprisingly however, the effect of conservative and liberal criterion placement on neural measures of unconscious and conscious processing has never been explicitly investigated. Here we use simulations and electrophysiological brain measurements to show that conservative criterion placement has an unintuitive consequence: rather than selectively providing a cautious estimate of conscious processing, it inflates effect sizes in neural measures of both conscious and unconscious processing, while liberal criterion placement does the reverse. After showing this in simulation, we performed decoding analyses on two electroencephalography studies that employ common subjective indicators of conscious awareness, in which we experimentally manipulated the response criterion. The results confirm that the predicted confounding effects of criterion placement on neural measures of unconscious and conscious processing occur in empirical data, while further showing that the most widely used subjective scale, the Perceptual Awareness Scale (PAS), does not guard against criterion confounds. Follow up simulations explicate how the experimental context determines whether the relative confounding effect of criterion placement is larger in neural measures of either conscious or unconscious processing. We conclude that criterion placement threatens the construct validity of neural measures of conscious and unconscious processing.

Unconscious Processing Contaminates Objective Measures of Conscious Perception: Evidence From the Liminal Prime Paradigm

Opposite ERP Effects for Conscious and Unconscious Semantic Processing under Continuous Flash Suppression

Extending a focused attention paradigm to critically test for unconscious congruency effects

Invisible stimuli, implicit thresholds: Why invisibility judgments cannot be interpreted in isolation

Prime-induced illusion of control: The influence of unconscious priming on self-initiated actions and the role of regression to the mean

Unconscious Perception of Vernier Offsets

The Psychological Mechanisms of Subliminal Priming of Information Processing

Dissociating conscious and unconscious influences on visual detection effects

Juggling too many balls at once: Qualitatively different effects when measuring priming and masking in single, dual, and triple tasks

Multiple sources of unconscious-information processing affect a single response: independent unconscious priming effects

Unconscious numerical priming despite interocular suppression

Influence of Temporal Expectations on Response Priming by Subliminal Faces

Is subliminal face processing modulated by attentional task sets? Evidence from masked priming effects in a gender decision task

Perceptual versus attentional impairments of conscious access: Distinct neural mechanisms despite equal task performance

Subliminal speech perception and auditory streaming

Criterion placement threatens the construct validity of neural measures of consciousness

Masked blindsight in normal observers: Measuring subjective and objective responses to two features of each stimulus

The Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus Plays an Important Role in Unconscious Information Processing: Activation Likelihood Estimation Analysis Based on Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Neural correlates of unconscious and conscious visual processing

Unconscious social integration: seeing social interactions between two invisible people

Visibility predicts priming within but not between people: a cautionary tale for studies of cognitive individual differences