Cited by 145Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeural dynamics and brain functionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Breakdown of the brain’s functional network modularity with awareness

Open access
Godwin, Douglass, Barry, Robert L., Marois, René·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: How the brain begets conscious awareness has been one of the most fundamental and elusive problems in neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. Correspondingly, this problem has spawned a remarkably large number of theories that differ by the proposed extent of cortical and subcortical changes associated with awareness, ranging from local to global changes in functional connectivity. Graph theoretical techniques, in combination with functional magnetic resonance imaging, provide a well-suited tool to adjudicate between these disparate theories by characterizing whole-brain patterns of communication. In this paper, we demonstrate large-scale differences in functional connections with awareness of a visual target, consistent with global models of awareness.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1414466112

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The timescales on which decoherence occurs in the environment of the brain are considerably shorter than neural firing rates.

    “As initially calculated by Max Tegmark in response to Orch OR theory, the timescales on which decoherence occurs in the environment of the brain are considerably shorter than neural firing rates 47 .”

    From Quantum effects in the brain: A review (2020) · cites this paper as [47]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Godwin, D., Barry, R. L., & Marois, R.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology,
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-03-10
Volume
112
Issue
12
Pages
3799-3804
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2050365551
Cited by
145
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 5
FWCI
14.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
HHS | National Institutes of Health (P30-EY008126, 5R01EB000461)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
awareness, conscious perception, ultra-high field fMRI
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Awareness, Behavior, Brain Mapping, Consciousness, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Models, Statistical, Young Adult

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