Cited by 26Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceNeural dynamics and brain functionCognitive Science and Education Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 328 of the 331 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A measure centrality index for systematic empirical comparison of consciousness theories

Open access
Chis-Ciure, Robert, Melloni, Lucia, Northoff, Georg·2024·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Consciousness science is marred by disparate constructs and methodologies, making it challenging to systematically compare theories. This foundational crisis casts doubts on the scientific character of the field itself. Addressing it, we propose a framework for systematically comparing consciousness theories by introducing a novel inter-theory classification interface, the Measure Centrality Index (MCI). Recognizing its gradient distribution, the MCI assesses the degree of importance a specific empirical measure has for a given consciousness theory. We apply the MCI to probe how the empirical measures of the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNW), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and Temporospatial Theory of Consciousness (TTC) would fare within the context of the other two. We demonstrate that direct comparison of IIT, GNW, and TTC is meaningful and valid for some measures like Lempel-Ziv Complexity (LZC), Autocorrelation Window (ACW), and possibly Mutual Information (MI). In contrast, it is problematic for others like the anatomical and physiological neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) due to their MCI-based differential weightings within the structure of the theories. In sum, we introduce and provide proof-of-principle of a novel systematic method for direct inter-theory empirical comparisons, thereby addressing isolated evolution of theories and confirmatory bias issues in the state-of-the-art neuroscience of consciousness.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105670

Cites

328 of 328 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Items 201–328 of 328

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sitt, 2014, Methods to monitor consciousness, EP2789293, A1
  2. Tononi, 2017, The integrated information theory of consciousness: an outline, Black Companion Conscious.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Metadata

Authors
Chis-Ciure, R., Melloni, L., & Northoff, G.
Affiliations
  • Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno (ES)
  • Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Chis-Ciure, Robert
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
161
Pages
105670
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394743787
Cited by
22
References
331
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
theory of consciousness, global neuronal workspace theory, integrated information theory, Lempel-Ziv complexity, mutual information, neural correlates of consciousness, confirmation bias
MeSH terms
Brain, Consciousness, Humans, Information Theory, Psychological Theory

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