CNRU, Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Kroghsttraede 3, 9220 Aalborg Oest, Aalborg, Denmark.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 May 19;367(1594):1287-96. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0425.
In experimental investigations of consciousness, participants are asked to reflect upon their own experiences by issuing reports about them in different ways. For this reason, a participant needs some access to the content of her own conscious experience in order to report. In such experiments, the reports typically consist of some variety of ratings of confidence or direct descriptions of one's own experiences. Whereas different methods of reporting are typically used interchangeably, recent experiments indicate that different results are obtained with different kinds of reporting. We argue that there is not only a theoretical, but also an empirical difference between different methods of reporting. We hypothesize that differences in the sensitivity of different scales may reveal that different types of access are used to issue direct reports about experiences and metacognitive reports about the classification process.
在意识的实验研究中,参与者被要求通过以不同的方式报告自己的经验来反思自己的经验。因此,参与者需要某种方式来访问自己的意识经验内容,以便进行报告。在这些实验中,报告通常包括某种形式的信心评级或对自己经验的直接描述。虽然不同的报告方法通常可以互换使用,但最近的实验表明,不同的报告方法会产生不同的结果。我们认为,不同的报告方法不仅在理论上存在差异,而且在经验上也存在差异。我们假设,不同量表的敏感性差异可能表明,不同类型的访问方式被用于直接报告经验和元认知报告分类过程。