A Neurologically Inspired Network Model for Graziano’s Attention Schema Theory for Consciousness
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A computational model of attention with an internal model is better controlled than one without.
“One group of researchers has presented a computational model of attention with and without an internal model and found that at least this simplified, artificial attention is better controlled with the internal model (van den Boogaard et al., 2017).”
From The Attention Schema Theory: A Foundation for Engineering Artificial Consciousness (2017) · cites this paper as van den Boogaard et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The attention schema theory: a mechanistic account of subjective awareness
Graziano, M. S. A., & Webb, T. W. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Attributing awareness to oneself and to others
Kelly, Y. T., Webb, T. W., Meier, J. D., Arcaro, M. J., & Graziano, M. S. A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1401201111 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Attention Schema Theory: A Foundation for Engineering Artificial Consciousness
Graziano, M. S. A. (2017) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2017.00060 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Wilterson, A. I., & Graziano, M. S. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2102421118 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- van den Boogaard, E., Treur, J., & Turpijn, M.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2017
- Pages
- 10-21
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W2619626547
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.94
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.vu.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Keywords
- attention schema theory, consciousness, attentional control, neural network model, body schema, top-down control, bottom-up processing, attention deficits, internal simulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
