The Subliminal Threshold Estimation Procedure (STEP): A calibration method tailored for estimating subliminal thresholds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major challenge in studying unconscious processing is to effectively suppress the critical stimulus while allowing maximal signal strength for adequate sensitivity to detect an effect, if it exists. A possible way to do this is to calibrate stimulus strength. While calibrating stimulus strength is common in psychophysics, current calibration methods are not designed to find the maximal intensity in which the stimulus can still be rendered unconscious (i.e., find the upper subliminal threshold for each participant). Here, we demonstrate how calibration can be utilized to estimate, for each observer, this targeted threshold. We present a novel calibration procedure: the Subliminal Threshold Estimation Procedure (STEP), specifically designed for estimating the upper subliminal threshold for each individual. Using simulations, we showed that STEP outperforms existing calibration methods, which yielded strikingly low accuracy. We then further validated STEP using three empirical experiments. Together, these results establish STEP as highly beneficial for the study of unconscious processing.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it