The P3 Reflects Awareness and Can Be Modulated by Confidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important question in neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) studies is whether event-related potential (ERP) component P3 reflects visual awareness or the confidence with which one reports a visual experience. In the present study, participants detected visual stimuli presented at threshold-level contrast, then rated their subjective confidence with respect to their response on a four-point scale (very confident, quite confident, slightly confident, and not confident at all). Because awareness responses in trials with rating of "not confident at all" were likely noise, we analyzed the data excluding those trials. The ERP results revealed a significant positive difference in P3 amplitude between "aware" and "unaware" trials. P3 amplitude was more positive in aware trials compared to unaware trials. Importantly, this pattern was observed for trials with combined confidence ratings of "very confident" and "quite confident," and for trials with confidence ratings of "slightly confident," suggesting that awareness alone can modulate P3. A significant interaction between awareness and confidence is reported, suggesting that confidence influences P3 as well. In addition, ERP results revealed that visual awareness negativity (VAN) was observed over posterior temporal and occipital electrodes and largely not influenced by confidence. This result indicated that VAN is an early neural correlate of visual awareness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".