Subjective and objective approaches in the study of conscious perception

Science uses objective measurements to falsify predictions, whereas consciousness is thought to be intrinsically personal and subjective. Consequently, behavioral measures of consciousness are often designated as “objective” or “subjective”. Surprisingly however, the exact meaning of the terms objective and subjective is not clearly defined. Moreover, applying this label to a given behavioral measure is misleading, as the same measure can often be analyzed within a “subjective” or “objective” framework. Thus, the terms objective and subjective are not only relevant to the measure that is used, but to several other dimensions as well. In this chapter we provide a brief overview of dichotomies along which one might conceptualize the objective-subjective distinction, such as the empirico-analytical method (manipulation vs trial-by-trial sorting), the mode of stimulus presentation (forced-choice vs nonforced-choice), the response type (Type 1 vs Type 2), and the adoption of a ground truth when computing the outcome measure (performance vs appearance). Although these dichotomies often overlap, the correspondence between them is only partial. Problems and pitfalls are discussed. Finally, we recommend to always explicitly outline how one’s stimulus presentation, task, response measure, and analysis approach score on these dichotomies, requiring further explicit justification when claiming to capture “consciousness” as a construct.