Did you see it?
eLife May 28, 2025 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.107246 via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractWhen researchers are overly cautious in how they report their analyses of brain activity, it can artificially inflate the apparent relationship between neural measures and conscious or unconscious experiences. This makes it harder to tell the difference between conscious and unconscious processing. The finding suggests that reporting practices can introduce bias that obscures the true distinctions between these two types of experiences.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Criterion Human Signal detection theory Subjective measures Consciousness awareness |
| Key finding | Cautious reporting choices can artificially enhance the apparent correlation between brain activity and conscious or unconscious experiences, complicating the distinction between them. |
Abstract
Cautious reporting choices can artificially enhance how well analyses of brain activity reflect conscious and unconscious experiences, making distinguishing between the two more challenging.