An adversarial collaboration to critically evaluate theories of consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Different theories explain how subjective experience arises from brain activity 1,2 . These theories have independently accrued evidence, yet, confirmation bias and dependence on design choices hamper progress in the field 3 . Here, we present an open science adversarial collaboration which directly juxtaposes Integrated Information Theory (IIT) 4,5 and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) 6–10 , employing a theory-neutral consortium approach 11,12 . We investigate neural correlates of the content and duration of visual experience. The theory proponents and the consortium developed and preregistered the experimental design, divergent predictions, expected outcomes, and their interpretation 12 . 256 human subjects viewed suprathreshold stimuli for variable durations while neural activity was measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging, magnetoencephalography, and electrocorticography. We find information about conscious content in visual, ventro-temporal and inferior frontal cortex, with sustained responses in occipital and lateral temporal cortex reflecting stimulus duration, and content-specific synchronization between frontal and early visual areas. These results confirm some predictions of IIT and GNWT, while substantially challenging both theories: for IIT, a lack of sustained synchronization within posterior cortex contradicts the claim that network connectivity specifies consciousness. GNWT is challenged by the general lack of ignition at stimulus offset and limited representation of certain conscious dimensions in prefrontal cortex. Beyond challenging the theories themselves, we present an alternative approach to advance cognitive neuroscience through a principled, theory-driven, collaborative effort. We highlight the challenges to change people’s mind 13 and the need for a quantitative framework integrating evidence for systematic theory testing and building.
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 | 0.044 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".