Wierzchoń Michał, Paulewicz Borysław, Asanowicz Dariusz, Timmermans Bert, Cleeremans Axel
Consciousness Lab, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.
Warsaw School of Social Science and Humanities, Faculty in Katowice, Poland.
Conscious Cogn. 2014 Jul;27:109-20. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.009. Epub 2014 May 20.
We compare four subjective awareness measures in the context of a visual identification task and investigate quantitative differences in terms of scale use and correlation with task performance. We also analyse the effect of identification task decisions on subsequent subjective reports. Results show that awareness ratings strongly predict accuracy for all scale types, although the type of awareness measure may influence the reported level of perceptual awareness. Surprisingly, the overall relationship between awareness ratings and performance was weaker when participants rated their awareness before providing identification responses. Furthermore, the Perceptual Awareness Scale was most exhaustive only when used after the identification task, whereas confidence ratings were most exhaustive when used before the identification task. We conclude that the type of subjective measure applied may influence the reports on visual awareness. We also propose that identification task decisions may affect subsequent awareness ratings.
我们在视觉识别任务的背景下比较了四种主观意识测量方法,并研究了在量表使用和与任务表现相关性方面的定量差异。我们还分析了识别任务决策对后续主观报告的影响。结果表明,尽管意识测量的类型可能会影响所报告的感知意识水平,但对于所有量表类型,意识评分都能强烈预测准确性。令人惊讶的是,当参与者在提供识别反应之前对自己的意识进行评分时,意识评分与表现之间的整体关系较弱。此外,感知意识量表仅在识别任务之后使用时最为详尽,而信心评分在识别任务之前使用时最为详尽。我们得出结论,所应用的主观测量类型可能会影响关于视觉意识的报告。我们还提出,识别任务决策可能会影响后续的意识评分。