Cognitive Neuroscience Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, Building 10G, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, 17 Queen Square, WC1N 3AR London, United Kingdom.
Conscious Cogn. 2013 Sep;22(3):806-9. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.015. Epub 2013 May 30.
Comparison of behavioural measures of consciousness has attracted much attention recently. In a recent article, Szczepanowski et al. conclude that confidence ratings (CR) predict accuracy better than both the perceptual awareness scale (PAS) and post-decision wagering (PDW) when using stimuli with emotional content (fearful vs. neutral faces). Although we find the study interesting, we disagree with the conclusion that CR is superior to PAS because of two methodological issues. First, the conclusion is not based on a formal test. We performed this test and found no evidence that CR predicted accuracy better than PAS (p=.4). Second, Szczepanowski et al. used the present version of PAS in a manner somewhat different from how it was originally intended, and the participants may not have been adequately instructed. We end our commentary with a set of recommendations for future studies using PAS.
最近，行为意识测量的比较引起了广泛关注。在最近的一篇文章中，Szczepanowski 等人得出结论，当使用具有情感内容（恐惧与中性面孔）的刺激时，信心评级（CR）比感知觉量表（PAS）和决策后押注（PDW）更能准确地预测结果。尽管我们认为这项研究很有趣，但我们不同意 CR 优于 PAS 的结论，原因有两个方法论问题。首先，这个结论不是基于正式的测试。我们进行了这项测试，并没有发现 CR 比 PAS 更能准确地预测结果的证据（p=.4）。其次，Szczepanowski 等人以一种与最初设计意图略有不同的方式使用了 PAS 的当前版本，并且参与者可能没有得到充分的指导。我们在评论的最后提出了一系列关于未来使用 PAS 的研究的建议。
